Two  THOUSAND 


QUESTIONS 


AND  ANSWERS 


ABOUT  THE  W4R 


TWO  THOUSAND 

QUESTIONS  AND  ANSWERS 

ABOUT  THE  WAR 


MEDALS    OF  THE  ALLIES 


1.  UNITED  STATES— 

Medal  of  Honor,  Army 

2.  UNITED  STATES— 

Medal  of    Honor.  Navy 

3.  UNITED  STATES— 

Certificate  of  Merit  Medal 

4.  GREAT  BRITAIN 

Distinguished  Service  Order 


5.  GREAT   IIRITAIN 

\'ictoria  Cross 

6.  FRANCE— 

Croix  de  Guerre  <("n»s  of  War) 

7.  FRANCE— 

Medaille  Mililaire  (Militarv    Medal) 

8.  BELGIUM— 

Order  of  Leopold 


9.  ITALY— Medal  of  Military  Valor 


TWO  THOUSAND 

QUESTIONS  AND  ANSWERS 

ABOUT  THE  WAR 


A  CATECHISM  OF  THE  METHODS 
OF  FIGHTING,  TRAVELLING  AND  LIVING; 
OF  THE  ARMIES,  NAVIES  AND  AIR  FLEETS; 
OF    THE    PERSONALITIES,   POLITICS     AND 
GEOGRAPHY  OF  THE  WARRING  COUNTRIES 


WITH  SEVENTEEN  NEW  WAR  MAPS 
AND 

A  PRONOUNCING  DICTIONARY  OF  NAMES 


NEW  YORK 
GEORGE   H.  DORAN   COMPANY 

BY  ARRANGEMENT  WITH 

THE  REVIEW  OF  REVIEWS  COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT,  1918,  BY 
THE  REVIEW  OF  REVIEWS  COMPANY 


INTRODUCTION 

THERE  was  probably  a  time,  at  the  beginning  of  this  war, 
when  most  of  us  in  the  United  States  thought  the  Ukraine 
was  a  musical  instrument.      At  least,  we  were  so  ignorant 
of  the  peoples  and  the  problems  of  Europe  that  we  had  little  under- 
standing of  the  conflict,  and  little  concern  with  the  fundamentals  of 
settlement.  Those  days  have  gone  forever. 

Whether  we  like  it  or  not,  we  are  now  citizens  of  the  world. 
By  virtue  of  a  struggle  against  military  despotism,  which  has  involved 
us  as  it  has  involved  nearly  all  the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth,  we 
are  compelled  to  do  our  part  in  curing  the  world  maladies  out  of 
which  this  great  plague  of  war  has  come  upon  us.  In  order  to  aid 
intelligently,  we  have  to  inform  ourselves,  to  educate  ourselves,  to 
learn  the  world  that  has  suddenly  called  upon  us  for  responsible 
cooperation,  and  to  study  the  peoples,  races,  states  and  problems 
with  which  we  shall  have  to  work. 

Such  volumes  as  this  "2,000  Questions  and  Answers  About  the 
War"  are  the  text-books  with  which  we  shall  have  to  begin.  It 
gives  the  background  of  difficulties  out  of  which  the  war  arose.  It 
relates  the  development  and  progress  of  the  conflict  that  widened 
to  include  us  as  the  aims  of  the  great  imperial  enemy  of  our  peace- 
ful civilization  developed  and  progressed.  It  indicates  the  necessary 
basis  for  a  permanent  settlement  of  the  terrible  dispute. 

In  other  countries,  where  the  policy  of  the  nation  has  been  in 
the  hands  of  a  governing  class,  such  knowledge  can  be  left  to  the 
officers  of  administration  and  the  legislative  advisers  who  control 
them. 

Here  it  must  be  the  possession  of  the  whole  people,  in  order 
that  we  may  be  able  successfully  to  carry  out  President  Wilson's 
famous  aim  "to  make  the  world  safe  for  democracy." 

This  war  will  not  be  won  until  it  becomes  part  and  parcel  of 
every  individual  life,  until  it  dominates  every  thought  and  activity. 
This  burning  consciousness  can  be  gained  only  through  an  exact 
knowledge  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  for  it  is  in  the  simplicities  of 
truth  that  America  and  the  great  liberal  nations  find  fullest  justifica- 
tion. The  "2,000  Questions  and  Answers,"  in  my  opinion, 
constitute  a  vital  part  of  the  national  defense. 

GEORGE  CREEL. 

5 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Mainsprings  of  the  War          ......  i 

The  Balkan  Powder  Magazine    .          .          .         .         .          .10 

Austria  and  the  Slavs     .......  1 6 

The  Tragic  Wound  (Alsace-Lorraine)  .          .          .          .21 

The  Place  in  the  Sun     .......  26 

How  We  Got  Into  It        .......      33 

Freedom  of  the  Seas       .......  38 

American  Army  in  France  ......       42 

Troop  Transport  Over  Seas   ......  54 

Man  Under  Water  (The  Submarine)  .          .          .          -57 

Man  in  the  Air 67 

Our  Navy 78 

Weapons  of  War  .......  87 

Our  Army          .........     103 

Identification  of  Fighting  Men        .          .          .          .          .          114 

The  Prisoner  of  War  .          .          .          .          .          .          .116 

Casualties  of  War  .          .         .          .         .          .         .          121 

Battles  of  the  Great  War 128 

Sea  Fights  of  the  Great  War  .          .          .          .         .          131 

Strategy  of  the  War — Military  and  Political          .          .          .     136 
Foreign  Navies      ........          141 

Soldiers  of  the  Allies  .         .         .          .          .         .          •     H7 

Ravaged  Belgium  .         .         .         .         .         .         .          153 

Lithuanians  and  Poles         .          .         .         .          .         .          .159 

Clamoring  Nationalities  .         .         .         .         .         .          163 

Restless  Russia  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .     175 

Japan  and  Manchuria     .          .          .          .         .         .         .          184 

Cost  of  War  (America)       .          .          .          .         .          .          .190 

Cost  of  War  (Allies) 197 

Cost  of  War  (Central  Powers)     ......     202 

Germany  (Industrial  Structure)        .....          206 

Germany  (Political  Structure)      .          .          .          .          .          .     214 

Germany  (Food)   .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         227 

The  Selective  Draft    .          .          .          .         .         .          .          -231 

Conscription  Abroad      .......          241 

Populations  and  Religions  ......     246 

Ship  Destruction    ........          252 

American  Ship  Seizures       .          .         .         .          .         .         .256 

The  World's  Ships  of  Peace  .          .         .         .         .          261 

European  Trade  Arteries    .......    266 

World  Trade         ........         269 


CONTENTS— continued 

Page 

Europe's  Food           ........  272 

America's  Food     ........  279 

The  World's  Raw  Materials        .          .          .          .          .          .283 

American  Conduct  of  War      ......  289 

Some  Past  Campaigns         .......  295 

The  Red  Cross  of  Mercy 298 

Who's  Who  in  Royalty 300 

War's  Who's  Who  in  Fighters        .....  305 

War's  Who's  Who  in  Civilians 310 

The  Workers         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .  319 

Spies,  Traitors  and  Alien  Enemies      .         .         .         .         .322 

Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War         ....  327 

The  Pronunciation  of  War  Names       .          .          .         .          .  338 

Index 349 

Illustrations 

Medals  of  Honor.        ......       Frontispiece 

Army  and  Navy  Insignia  .....       Page  109 

Flag  Signalling     .          .          .          .          .          .          .  "113 

Flags  of  the  Allies  (in  color)      ....          Plate  XVIII 

Maps  (in  color) 

The  World  at  War Plate  I 

The  German  Barred  Zones     .....  Plate  II 

The  German  Alliance Plate  III 

The  Western  Battle  Front Plate  IV 

Lowlands  of  Northern  France  and  Belgium          .  Plate  V 

(With  Battle  Lines) 

Highlands  of  Northern  France  (With  Battle  Lines)  Plate  VI 
Eastern  France  and  Alsace- Lorraine  (With  Battle  Lines)  Plate  VII 

Austro-Italian  Frontier  (With  Battle  Lines)          .  Plate  VIII 

Balkan  States  (With  Battle  Line)  .          .          .  Plate  IX 

Asia  Minor  (With  Battle  Line)  .          .          .  Plate  X 

Western  Russia,  Poland  and  Russo-German  Frontier  Plate  XI 

Russia  in  Europe  and  Caucasia  ....  Plate  XII 

(Showing  Extent  of  German  Invasion) 

The  Pan-German  Plan Plate  XIII 

Physical  Map  of  Europe    .....  Plate  XIV 

Racial  Map  ot  Europe Plate  XV 

Nationalities  in  Southern  Europe         .         .          .  Plate  XVI 

U.  S.  Army  Cantonments Plate  XVII 


»          C  10          I  > 


The  "Barred  Zonr-"  \\liirh  (jmnui 
(The  regions  proclaimed 


UST 


E      ROPE 


Gr      Greenwich  30 


irected  around  her  Enemies. 
ra  traffic  are  shown  in  blue.) 


SARDINIA 

it/ 

TOTAL  POPULATIONS  OF 
THE  GERMAN  ALLIANCE 


64.936.0OO1 

AUSTRIA  Z8.329.0OO 

GERMANY  «  AUSTRIA  93,251,000 

HUNGARY  ZO.866.OOO 

BOSNIA  1.898,000 


AUSTRIA  HUNGARY 
-i»nii) 


SI.IO9,OOO 
Ufa  035,000 


GERMANY  -AUSTRIA 

HUNGARY  (ww»  Bcva) 
BULGARIA  4. 338.000* 

TURKEY  20,000.000 

TOTAL  Cf 0*M  V  ALL  lANCf.  I40.573.000 

Tte  Affarw  for  tb»  Ottoman  Emplro  arc  conjoctural 


ml  prooorttonallT  from  • 
»h»ch  to 


unlikcl>  i 


tktofkrurr  nml  tin-  Dumber* of  Bulgmrs In  ' 


,..unt  to  ; 
than  a  million,  but  Mtmratofleiu 


Jin-  (.t-riiiiiii    \llianc.-:      NOtr  tlic    main    «livrr 


OF      THE 


]  Hsiionaiity 

State 

/•lumber 

%W& 

1 

^ 

GERMANS 

jermany 
Austr.a 
Hungary 

59,769.000 
9.950.000 
2.0S7.000 

92.0 
35.0 
98 

Total 

71    756000 

61   8 

MAGYARS 
8ULGARS 

TURKS 

Hungary 

Bulgaria 
OttomanEmpire 

10.051,000 
3,204,000 
7 
7,000.000 

481 
73.8 
7 
35,0 

Total 

92,011,000 

65.5 

DANES 
ALSATIANS 
FRENCH 
LITHUANIANS 
SORABIANS 
POLES 

Germany 
Austria 

162,000 
1,629,000 
258,000 
122,000 
157,000 
3,834,000 
4.968,000 

0.35 
Z.5 
0-4 
0.2 
0.24 
5.9 
175 

TolJl 

B.802,000 

9.4 

RUTHENES 

Austria 
Hun(>ary 

3,519,000 
473,000 

124 
2-3 

Tota! 

3.992,000 

ns 

CZECHS  - 
SLOVAKS 

Austria 
Hungary 

6,4  36,000 
1,968,000 

227 

94 
16.4- 

Total 

b.^U4,000 

BLACK 


Amasia'!' 
Sunfurlu 

islanoz."  'Angora 


SEA 
*/£/*A 


]  Nationality 

State 

Number 

si 

— 

JUGOSLAVS 

Austria 

2,036.000 

7.2 

H 

Hungary 

2,940,000 

14.0 

11 

Bosnia 

1,898,000 

100.0 

Total 

6.B74.00C 

13.4 



ROUMANIANS 

Austria 

275,000 

09 

K 

Hungary 

2,949,000 

14  1 



Total 

3,224.000 

63 

1    ITALIANS 

Austria 

768000 

2,7 

•GREEKS 

Turkey 

Z.OOO  000 

10-0 

" 

Bulgaria 

7 

? 

13  ARMENIANS 

Turkey 

3,000,000 

10.0 

••   LAZES 
1         1  KURDS 

:  I 

2,000,000 

10.0 

--'"-'-"-'.1  NESTORIANS 
1  ARABS 

;  } 

^000,000 

35.0 

All       Total  Subject 
Colors      NgtionalifiK 

Total 

German  Affiance 

47.392POO 

33.8 

j  Expropriations  oflhe.  G 
IV, VI  Jewish.  Colonies 


RUSSIA 


TURKS 


®Konieh 

Tarsu 
Mersin 


Beirut  If/ 


nationalities  doniinutrd  by  the  Central  Powers. 


LIB 

H:AM<»  (.1  I;MAN 
ntOHTUEB 


MMt*       9W  to 
«rar    «OI  ft.      1840  It.     »M  h.    u  828  I 


Th,-    I  ojH.^raj.hy  ,,{  |}M.  \\  ,.,t.-rn  Battle  Yrnul: 


IT1 


From  Sea-level  mud  and  marsh  t<>  Mountain-top. 


/     .V    G    L     I     S    H 


MNCE  OB 


.: 

tti  1918       —^— 

//      1     .V    .V    E    L 


OF 

i:\  I  I:\M  i 

\M» 

111    I   I. II    \\ 
9&UOT  WJS 


\\  lin, 


MAP 
's  Southwestern  thrust 


fir^:^^^^^ 
£g 


°HW?^ltS 

NoyeTetleo    ~" 
oA 


V5J    ,  T^?  oH 

SS-p   C^P^ 

^        MrttSoXdijf0^nne'^f  \  C««%^ 
L<HnmHniero  ^v0"^0    JT3  civefe/5%e> 

StAnWo         *S^W*»&^t«  %L(^V 
Paso]  HannesO^^  V°  *&lf  T^-fe&SY,, 


efly  endangered  Great  Britain. 


v  TD2?y5JVcGu^^ 

djj^£%S$££&&~^. 
&%&**£&&?** 

•^Kux  "  oTorfiqdenne 

oPelve"    *c*n*«w   — 

-4^!^^, 

£»* 


- 


£<V^^^0  ,wuv\  ^?0U» 

fe5irf^T^»?i«5B 


IS 

Ps 


TAUBELtEv 

l.deGn 


'••••-  MAI 

\  I  ;in<]  upon  which  tin-  Cha<>-  «.f  Doolatioi 


4:30' 


=  30' 


6°  ]M 

® 

HIGHLANDS 
OF 

NORTHERN  FRANCE 

SCALE  OF  MILE3      

6  5  10  15  ~20 

Railroads o- 

Canals  ...  =» 

Forts * 

Fortresses-- ---* 

1640  to  2460  feet 

1312  to  1640  " 

984  to  1312  " 

656  to  984  " 

328  to  656  " 

164  to  328  " 

0  to  164  " 


"B'?  BATTLE  LINE  MARCH  20th  1918  +  +  ** 

has  descended  through  Years  of  War. 


BATTLE  "LINE  APRIL  6tK  1918i 


EST  AD'TANCE  OF  THE 


Railroads. 
Canals.... 
Capitals  ol 
Capital,  ol 
Uaruanu  Boundaries 
Size  i 


TYltltIU;\  i  ,  N 


i  11  W»pof  Dllmitl.ud  AuBdu  iMlianFrumie 
Copyrlf hi.  1»16.  bj  C.S.iUmn.ond  4  C. ...  B.T. 


A  glance  at  tbr 


-l     ()|     ltitl\  '.-. 

of  the  Adriatir  ~})i>\\-  that  ]>••  cti(  ally  al 


384  to  1640  to|3281  tol  4921  ft. 
340  ft.  3281  ft.|4921  ft.|  and  over 


i ;  ^ 


ASIA    MINOR 

SCALE    OF    MILES 


34 


Railroads.  .____  --- 

Railroads  Proposed 

Canals 

Capitals  ------  __ 

Boundaries  of  Countries 

Size  of  type  indicates  relati 
importance  of  places 

HEIGHT   OF  LAND 


Sea  level      328  to         984  to        1640  to       3281  to       4921  ft. 
to  328  ft.     984  ft.        1640  ft.      8281  ft.      4921  ft.     and  over 


ALEXANDRIA 


The  Gat«-\\i 
Th«-  >c«-ti«-  of  (ii.-at  Britain'^  ni«»t  humiliating  failure 


o  the  East, 
ind  sonic  of  her  most  brilliant  successes  in  the  World  War. 


NORTH 
SEA 


FRANCE        .  -S^BaS 


Constantsa 

tf/f     St 

Varna 


T     R     I     P     O 


THE  SECRET  OF  GERMANY'S  PEACE  OFFER 


The  Central  Powers 


Population  (in  round  figures) 


Germany 68,000,000 

Austria-Hungary 52,000,000 

Bulgaria 5  500,000 

Turkey 19,500,000 


145,000,000 


The  Occupied  Territory  (Jan'y  1918) 


Belgium 6,500,000 

Northern  France 6,000,000 

Poland,   Lithuania,  Courlar.d 18,500,000 

Serbia,  Montenegro 5,000,000 

Roumania 5,000,000 

Italy  1,000,000 


TO-DAY  GERMANY  CONTROLS 

Revised  from  "The  New  Europe"  January  11,  1917 


42,000,000 

187,000,000  People 


THE  PAN-GERMAN  PLAN 

as  realised  by  War 
IN  EUROPE  AND  IN  ASIA 

"Central  Europe"  and  its  Annexe  in  the  Near  East 

(Germany,  Austria-Hungary,  Bulgaria,  Turkey) 
The  Entente  Powers 

Territory  occupied  by  Central  Powers 
Territory  occupied  by  Entente  Powers 
•MB    GERMANY'S  MAIN  ROUTE  TO  THE  EAST 

(Berlin-Bagdad,  Berlin-Hodeida,  Berlin-Cairo-Cape) 
__    Supplementary  Routes 

(Berlin-  Trieste,  Berlin-Salonica-Athens,  Berlin-Constantza-Constantinople) 
•  ••     Uncompleted  sectors 


r-V     --A  AT   \ 


•** 

l-H 

ON 


-_ 

~ 


It 
- 
^. 

s 

O 
-, 

JS 

H 


LUNGA  o *JS 

X      BuEoiM 

i.  •• 


-•-r\ 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  NATIONALITIES 

IN- 
SOUTH-EASTERN  EUROPE 

SCALE  OF  MILES 


Poles 

Ruthenians  (Little  Russians) 

Czechs  and  Slouahs 


Ser bo-Croats 

Macedonian  Slavs 
SLA  VO-MONGOLS.Bulgarians 

Magyars 

Turks 
( Italians 
LATINS  ^Roumanians 

Albanians 

Greeks 

Germans 


Boundary  of  Concession  to  Italy  by  the  Allies 


Tin-  "Cock-i 


of  Europe." 


UNITED  STATES  ARJ 


E  B  R  ,\  S  K  A 
C      E      N     T      I 


CANTONMENTS  FOR  TH1 
NATIONAL  ARMY 

Aycr,  Mass. 

Wrightstown,  N.  I. 

Atlanta.  Ga. 

American  Lake,  Wash. 

Columbia,  S.  C. 

Chilli.-,, the,  Ohio 

Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Battle  Creek,  Mich. 

San  Antonio,  Tex. 

Ft.  Rilcy.  Kans. 

DCS  Moines.  la. 

Yaphank,  N.  Y. 

Annapolii  June.  Md. 
(    I  Pctenbur^,  Ta- 
{    I    Rookford.  111. 

MEDICAL  OFFICERS' 
TRAINING  CAMPS 

Allentown,  Pa. 
Ft.  Ben.  Harrison,  Ind, 
Ft.  DCS  Moines.  la. 
Ft.  Oglethorpe,  Ga. 
Ft.  Riley,  Kftns. 


NATIONAL  GUARD 
TENT   CAMPS 

a  Ft.  Worth,  Tex. 

b  Waco,  Tex. 

0  Houston.  Tex. 
d  Ft.  Sill,  Okla. 
e  Deming,  N.  M. 
i'  Bar.  Diego,  Cal- 
e  Greenville,  S.  C. 
h  Spartanhurg,  S.  C. 

i  Augusta,  Ga. 

j  Macon.  Ga. 

k  Mincola,  N.  Y. 

1  Montgomery,  Ala, 
m  A'liiiston.  Ala. 

n  Charlotte.  N.  C. 

o  Hatticsburg.  Miss, 

p  Alexandria,  La. 


OFFICERS'  TRAINING  CAMP8 

I    Plattsburg  Barracks.  N    Y. 

II  Madison  Barracks,  K.  Y. 

III  Ft.  Niagara,  N.  Y. 

IV  Ft    Myer,  Va. 

V    Ft   Ofc'lcthorpe,  Ga. 
VI    Ft.  Me  Pherson,  Ga. 

Ft.  Benjamin  Harrison,  Ind- 
Ft.  Sheridan,  111. 
Ft.  Logan  H.  Roots,  Ark. 
X    Ft  Sii.'lling,  Minn. 
XI    Ft.  Rilcy.  Kans. 
Xil     !.  •  >n  Springs,  Tex. 
Xilt    Presidio  of  San  Francisco,  Cai 


VII 

VIII 

IX 


When-  tli<-  I  nitril  States 


LEGEXD 

Departmental  Headquarters    p 
Coast  Artillery  Headquarters 

State  Boundary 

Army  Department 
Cantonment  Divis 


A  Call  Field,  Wichita  Falls,  Tex. 

B  Elli  ngton  Field  Houston,  Tex. 

C  Kelly  Field,  San  Antonio,  Tex. 

D  Love  Field,  Dallas,  Tex. 

E  Rich  Field,  Waco.  Tex. 

F  Camp  Taliaferro.  Ft.  Worth,  Tex 

G  Chandler  Field,  Essington,  Pa. 


H  Gerstner  Field,  Lake  Charles,  La. 

J  Hazelhurst  Field,  Mineola,  N.  Y. 

K  Park  Field,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

L  Post  Field,  Ft.  Sill.  Okla. 

M  Rockwell  Field,  San  Diego,  Cal 

N  Selfridge  Field,  Sit.  Clemens,  Hid, 

O  Scott  Field,  Belleville,  111 


SPECIAL  ARMY  SCHOOLS 
Aviation  Training  Camps: 

A    Mineola,  H.  Y. 

B    Mt.  Clemens,  Mich. 

C    Garfield,  Ohio 

D    Rantoul,  111. 

£    East  St.  Louis,  111. 

F    Ashbarn,  111. 

G    San  Diego,  Cal. 

H    San  Antonio,  Tex. 

I    BellviUe,  111. 

Schools  of  Military  Aeronautics: 

J    Massachusetts  Institute  of 
Technology 

K    Cornell  University 

L    Ohio  State  University 

M    University  of  Illinois 

H    University  of  Texas 

O    University  of  California 

P    Georgia  School  of  Technology 

Q    Princeton  University 

Reserve  Engineers'  Training  Camps: 

R    Belvoir,  Va. 

S    American  University.  D.  C. 

T    Ft.  Leavenworth.  Kans. 

U    Vancouver  Darracka,  Wash. 

C.8. HAMMOND  4  CO..N.Y. 


Army  is  in  the  Making. 


FLAGS  OF  THE  ALLIES 


UNITED  STATES 


NATIONAL 

nOIVLJCANADA 


BELGIUM 


MERCHANT 

SERBIA 


MERCHANT 

CUBA 


NATIONAL 

CHINA 


BRIT.  EMPIRE 


ROYAL  STANDARD 

AUSTRALIA 


FEDERAL  FLAG 

JAPAN 


IMPERIAL  STANDARD 

RUSSIA 


ENSIGN 

PORTUGAL 


MERCHANT 

MONTENEGRO 


FRANCE 


NATIONAL 

NEW  ZEALAND 


MERCHANT 

GREECE 


MERCHANT 

ROUMANIA 


NATIONAL 


MERCHANT 


MAINSPRINGS  OF  THE  WAR 


Q. — Is  the  World  War  really  in- 
comparably vaster  than  any 
preceding  one? 

A. — The  money  cost  alone  would  show 
that  it  is.  The  U.  S.  Treasury  Depart- 
ment's figures  of  the  total  expenditure  at 
the  close  of  the  third  year  were  nearly 
ninety  thousand  millions  of  dollars.  On 
the  then  estimated  basis  of  $116,700,000 
daily,  the  direct  expense  of  this  war  up 
to  March  i,  1918,  was  practically  one 
hundred  and  ten  billions ;  whereas  all  the 
wars  of  all  the  nations  from  1793  to  1914 
(which  includes  the  terrible  Napoleonic 
wars,  the  American  Civil  War,  the 
Franco-Prussian,  and  the  Russian-Jap- 
anese) footed  up  an  aggregate  of  less 
than  quarter  of  this  amount. 

Q. — Are  we  justified  in  naming 
this  the  "World"  War? 

A. — At  the  beginning  of  1918  practically 
93%  of  the  world's  population  was  in- 
volved. The  fifteen  countries  still  classed 
as  neutrals  had  a  combined  population  of 
only  130,000,000;  and  a  quarter  of  these 
were  the  natives  of  the  Dutch  East  India 
possessions ;  whereas  the  twenty-three 
countries  actually  at  war  had  a  combined 
population  (including  colonials)  of  over 
seventeen  hundred  millions  of  people. 
The  proportion  of  the  earth's  surface 
left  nominally  at  peace,  and  the  relation 
of  size  between  the  two  sides,  are  strik- 
ingly shown  in  the  map  in  this  volume : 
"The  World  at  War." 

Q. — Exactly  what  was  the  align- 
ment of  nations  at  the  begin- 
ning of  1918? 

A.— On  the  side  of  the  Central  Pow- 
ers :  Germany,  Austria,  Turkey,  Bulgaria. 

On  the  side  of  the  Entente  Allies :  Bel- 
gium, Brazil,  China,  Cuba,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Greece,  Italy,  Japan,  Liberia, 
Montenegro,  Panama,  ^  Portugal,  Rou- 
mania,  Russia,  San  Marino,  Serbia,  Siam, 
United  States  of  America. 

And  the  following  countries,  though  not 
declaring  war,  had  severed  relations  with 
the  Central  Powers :  Bolivia,  Costa  Rica, 
Egypt,  Guatemala,  Hayti,  Honduras,  Nica- 
ragua, Peru,  Uruguay. 

Q. — How  do  these  opposing  forces 
compare  in  national  power? 

A.— The  Entente  Allies  and  the  United 
States  had  94.4  per  cent  of  the  area  of 


the  warring  nations ;  76.3  per  cent  of  the 
population  (even  omitting  the  tremendous 
Asiatic  population  included  in  the  British 
Empire)  ;  78.5  per  cent  of  the  men  of 
military  age  available  for  service — ex- 
cluding Africans  and  Asiatics ;  66  per  cent 
of  the  men  actually  enrolled  in  the 
armies  and  navies;  80.5  per  cent  of  the 
national  wealth;  83.1  per  cent  of  the  na- 
tional income — considered  as  the  yearly 
earnings  of  the  peoples. 

The  combined  debt  of  the  Allies  was 
14.7  per  cent  of  their  wealth,  that  of  the 
Central  Powers  28.7  per  cent  of  their 
wealth.  The  annual  interest  charge  of 
the  latter  was  11.8  per  cent  of  their  na- 
tional income  against  4.6  per  cent  in  the 
case  of  the  Entente  Allies. 

The  surplus  food-producing  regions  of 
the  world  were  practically  all  controlled 
by  the  Entente,  either  directly  or  through 
command  of  the  seas.  The  same  thing 
was  largely  true  of  the  metals  and  coal. 

Q. — How  did  the  war  start? 

A.— The  assassination  of  Archduke 
Francis  Ferdinand,  heir  to  the  Austrian 
throne,  and  his  morganatic  wife  in  the 
streets  of  Serajevo,  the  capital  of  Bosnia- 
Herzegovina,  was  the  direct  act  that 
started  the  conflagration.  The  crime  was 
committed  by  a  Serbian  subject  of  Aus- 
tria, and,  while  there  was  no  evidence  of 
complicity  on  the  part  of  the  Serbian 
Crown  or  Government,  it  was  manifestly 
a  result  of  Pan-Serbian  agitation.  A 
month  later,  July  28,  1914,  Austria  de- 
clared war  on  Serbia — which  precipitated 
the  great  conflict. 

Q. — Do  the  best  informed  students 
of  world  politics  feel  the  war 
could  have  been  avoided? 

A. — Hardly.  While  Great  Britain  might 
not  have  been  drawn  in  if  Germany  had 
not  violated  Belgian  neutrality,  the  feel- 
ing from  subsequent  developments  is  that 
the  vast  conflict  would  have  been  merely 
postponed.  For  the  war  at  first  appeared 
to  be  the  result  of  Germany's  determina- 
tion to  grasp  and  make  secure  her^'place 
in  the  sun,"  along  lines  quite  similar  to 
those  upon  which  in  the  past  had  been 
built  the  British  Empire,  the  French 
colonial  empire,  and  the  tremendous  Rus- 
sian expansion.  But  during  that  fateful 
year  of  1917  which  brought  in  the  United 
States  it  became  clear  that  it  had  devel- 
oped into  a  war  of  principles. 


Questions  and  Answers 


President  Wilson  did  more  than  any 
other  one  man  to  show  everybody  that  the 
struggle  had  deepened  to  one  affecting  the 
very  foundations  of  international  rela- 
tions ;  it  was  a  war  to  bring  harmony  into 
the  world  on  principles  of  justice  and 
freedom,  and  to  create  an  organization  of 
the  world's  public  opinion  that  should  be 
stronger  for  peace  and  order  than  any 
single  empire  or  alliance  could  be  for  at- 
taining its  ends  through  military  power. 

In  a  word,  it  became  a  contest  between 
the  ideals  of  democracy  and  of  autocracy. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  some  countries 
were  in  1914  far  more  autocratically  gov- 
erned than  others,  the  two  conceptions 
were  bound  to  clash  sooner  or  later. 

Q. — Was  there  one  big  single  war- 
factor? 

A. — Yes.  The  one  great,  ever-active 
agency  that  has  kept  Europe  feud-torn 
and  armed  has  been  the  European  prac- 
tice of  leaving  international  relations  in 
the  hands  of  a  very  few  men — diplomats, 
foreign  secretaries,  cabinets  and  inner 
monarchical  or  political  circles — instead 
of  dealing  with  them  openly  through  the 
representative  law-making  bodies,  such  as 
the  British  Parliament,  the  German 
Reichstag,  and  so  on. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  interna- 
tional step  toward  abolishing 
secret  diplomacy? 

A. — On  January  8,  1918,  President 
Wilson  addressed  Congress  on  the  basis 
of  a  possible  world-peace.  The  very  first 
clause  in  his  program  was: 

"Open  covenants  of  peace,  openly  ar- 
rived at,  after  which  there  shall  be  no 
private>  international  understandings  of 
any  kind,  but  diplomacy  shall  proceed 
always  frankly  and  in  the  public  view." 

Q. — Had  the  Russian  Revolution- 
ary government  not  asked  the 
same  thing? 

A. — The  demand  for  publication  of  cer- 
tain secret  treaties  was  raised  almost  im- 
mediately after  Czardom  was  overthrown. 
The  Kerensky  government,  however,  did 
not  apparently  deem  it  wise  to  publish 
them,  and  they  were  not  published  until 
the  Bolsheviki  under  Trotzky  and  Lenine 
assumed  power.  Then  they  were  given  to 
the  world,  some  little  time  before  the 
President's  message  was  delivered. 

Q. — What  were  the  secret  trea- 
ties? 

A. — They  were  treaties  made  between 
Russia  and  the  various  Allies  after  the 


war  began,  and  they  dealt  with  a  general 
distribution  of  enemy  territory  among  the 
allied  nations.  Thus  Russia  was  to  get 
Constantinople  and  Armenia.  Italy  was  to 
get  very  large  accretions  of  territory,  in- 
cluding not  only  the  provinces  known  as 
Italia  Irredenta,  but  a  great  part  of  the 
Istrian  and  Dalmatian  domain  bordering 
on  the  Adriatic,  with  other  possessions  in 
Syria,  etc.  France  was  to  get  Alsace-Lor- 
raine and  large  tracts  of  German  territory 
north  of  it  toward  the  Rhine,  while  other 
parts  of  Rhenish  Germany  were  to  be 
"neutralized." 

Q. — What  were  the  great  specific 
pre-war  rivalries  ? 

A. — The  great  specific  causes  for  the 
great  war  were : 

(1)  Germany's     immense     commercial 
growth,  which  produced  the  imperialistic 
striving   typified    by   the   Pan-Germanism 
movement  and   by  the  two  great  cries : 
"A  Place  in  the  Sun1'  and  "Der  Drang 
Nach  Osten"  (The  Impulse  Eastward). 

(2)  The  growing  passion  of  the  Slavic 
races  and  nationalities  for  political  power 
as  Slavs  (Pan-Slavism). 

(3)  British   control   of   the   world-sea, 
which  bound  a  huge  part  of  the  world 
together  as   "The  British   Empire"    (The 
All-red  Belt  Around  the  Earth,  as  shown 
on  British  postage  stamps)   and  the  con- 
sequent control  of  nearly  the  whole  colon- 
ial area  of  earth. 

(4)  French  expansion  into  North  Af- 
rica, with  the  Franco-British  "understand- 
ing," which  tended  to  make  the  Mediter- 
ranean more  and  more  a  private  sea. 

(5)  Italian  expansion,  as  expressed  by 
the  Italia  Irredenta  movement  and  Italian 
conquest  of  north  African  territory. 

Q. — What  was  the  German  demand 
for  "a  place  in  the  sun"? 

A. — It  was  a  demand  for  the  same  op- 
portunity of  expansion  and  extra-terri- 
torial development  that  other  nations  had. 

Q. — Why  did  this  natural  desire 
become  dangerous  to  world- 
peace? 

A. — Because  "places  in  the  sun"  were 
pretty  well  occupied.  "Places  in  the  sun" 
were  mostly  colonial,  of  course,  and  other 
nations  already  had  the  best  colonies. 
This  led  the  imperialists  and  expansion- 
ists in  Germany  to  preach  that  (i)  other 
nations  had  possessed  themselves  greed- 
ily of  all  the  possible  colonial  areas  of 
the  earth;  (2)  that  they  had  no  right 
thus  to  monopolize  the  world  to  the  last- 


Mainsprings  of  the  IV ar 


ing  detriment  of  Germany;  (3)  that, 
therefore,  if  Germany  could  not  obtain 
her  desired  "place  in  the  sun"  peaceably, 
it  was  necessary  to  fight  for  it. 

Q. — How  did  Morocco  cause  gen- 
eral European  trouble? 

A. — When  England  and  France  con- 
cluded their  treaty  for  the  division  of 
Africa  in  1904,  the  Kaiser  at  first  acqui- 
esced apparently,  and  Germany  seemed  to 
accept  the  view  that  considered  France's 
interest  in  Morocco  paramount.  The  fol- 
lowing year,  however,  the  Emperor  called 
personally  on  the  Sultan  of  Morocco,  and 
assured  him  that  Germany  was  his  pro- 
tector and  would  see  that  his  territorial 
integrity  was  upheld. 

Soon  thereafter  Germany  claimed  that 
France  and  England,  in  concluding  the 
African  treaty,  had  violated  the  conven- 
tion of  1880,  which  guaranteed  no  change 
of  territorial  division  in  Africa  without  a 
general  conference  of  European  Powers. 

Germany  forced  France  and  England  to 
hold  a  conference  at  Algeciras.  The  sov- 
ereignty of  Morocco  was  partly  preserved, 
and  France  obtained  the  right  to  police 
the  Sultan's  territory  "in  case  of  revolt." 
Soon  after  the  conference,  France  took 
military  action.  The  Powers  were  mutu- 
ally suspicious,  and  in  1909  Germany 
warned  France  that  she  was  violating  the 
treaty  of  Algeciras.  Then  Germany  made 
the  famous  naval  demonstration  against 
Agadir  with  the  gunboat  Panther,  and 
brought  Europe  to  the  verge  of  war.  The 
trouble  was  composed,  and  Germany  re- 
ceived a  million  square  miles  of  French 
Congo. 

Q. — What  was  "Der  Drang  nach 
Osten"? 

A. — German  expansionists,  both  in  the 
political  and  in  the  commercial  fields,  had 
begun  to  look  toward  the  near  east — 
that  is,  Asia  Minor.  A  specific  expres- 
sion of  this  "impulse  toward  the  east" 
was  the  spectacular  project  known  as  the 
Berlin-Bagdad  Railroad. 

Q. — What  is  the  meaning  of  He- 
gemony? 

A. — Hegemony  comes  from  the  Greek 
"hegemonia,"  and  it  meant  the  leadership 
of  one  city  or  state,  such  as  Athens  or 
Sparta,  in  a  group  of  federated  or  loosely 
united  states. 

In  relation  to  European  politics,  it 
means  some  such  dominant  position  as 
Bismarck  secured  for  the  Kingdom  of 
Prussia  over  the  other  States  of  Germany 
by  the  wars  of  1864,  1866,  and  1870,  re- 


sulting in  the  establishment  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire. 

Q.—What  is  Pan-Slavism? 

A.— Originally  it  was  an  expression  of 
deep  sentimental  and  poetical  aspiration 
of  the  Slav  races  and  tribes  for  spiritual 
unity.  About  forty  years  ago  it  assumed 
political  importance,  playing  a  considera- 
ble part  in  the  Balkan  rebellions  against 
Turkish  rule.  Since  then  it  has  turned 
itself  against  the  domination  of  Slav  ma- 
jorities and  minorities  everywhere  by 
other  nationalities. 

Q. — Wnv  did  such  a  noble  aspira- 
tion endanger  peace? 

A.— Because  diplomats  and  politicians 
saw  in  it  a  useful  instrument.  The  poli- 
ticians of  the  Russian  autocracy  used  it 
to  strengthen  their  own  control  within  the 
Empire.  The  Russian  diplomats  used  it 
to  make  a  Pan-Slavism  outside  of  the 
Empire  that  should  in  time  play  its  des- 
tined part  in  expanding  Russian  rule  in 
Europe.  The  little  Balkan  diplomats  and 
politicians  used  it  to  cover  annexationist 
and  other  programs. 

The_  German  militarist  parties  were  not 
slow  in  seeing  what  an  excellent  argu- 
ment this  gave  them  for  preaching  pan- 
Germanism — ostensibly  for  simple  self- 
defence. 

Q. — How  many  Slavs  are  there? 

A. — The  Slavs  inhabit  eastern  and 
southeastern  Europe,  where  they  are  the 
great  majority  of  the  population,  but  they 
are  not  geographically  united.  The  main 
stock  comprises  the  Russians,  Poles, 
Czechs,  Slovaks,  and  Ruthenes  or  Little 
Russians.  In  the  south,  and  separated 
from  the  northern  branch  by  a  solid  bar- 
rier of  Germans,  Magyars,  and  Rouma- 
nians, live  the  Southern  or  Jugo-Slavs. 
The  Bulgars  have  usually  been  included 
in  the  Southern  Slavs,  but  they  were 
originally  an  Asiatic  people  who  have 
been  Slavicized,  and  since  their  defeat  in 
the  second  Balkan  war  many  of  them 
have  repudiated  the  Slav  cause.  Approxi- 
mate figures  for  the  race  as  a  whole  are : 

Russians  100,000,000 

Little  Russians  (Ukrainers)  . .  30,000,000 

Poles   15,000.000 

Czechs  and  Slovaks 8,500,000 

Slovenes  1,250,000 

Croats  2,500,000 

Serbs  4,000,000 

Bulgars 4.500.000 

Total 165,750,000 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  was  the  foundation  of 
the  Italian  Irredentist  move- 
ment? 

A. — This,  also,  was  a  spiritual  and  no- 
ble striving  of  the  Italian  people  toward 
a  fine  and  just  unity. 

Q. — Just  what  did  the  Italian  Irre- 
dentists desire? 

A. — They  desired  the  provinces  in  the 
north  that  were  under  foreign  domina- 
tion but  which  contained  populations  that 
were  Italian  or  largely  Italian. 

Q. — Were  all  these  provinces  un- 
der Austria? 

A. — Most  of  them  were.  But  at  one 
time  (though  little  has  been  heard  of  this 
lately)  Italian  Irredentism  was  directed 
also  against  the  French  possession  of  the 
stretch  of  Mediterranean  coast  that  in- 
cludes the  city  of  Nice. 

Q. — Did  French  expansion  into 
Northern  Africa  hurt  Ger- 
many's interest  sufficiently  to 
become  a  cause  for  war? 

A. — In  one  sense,  no.  It  seems  per- 
fectly fair  to  say  that  the  French  Mo- 
rocco adventure  did  not  injure  actual 
German  interests,  or  at  least  that  it  did 
so  only  in  a  small  degree.  But  in  an- 
other sense  it  was  a  very  real  additional 
cause  toward  ultimate  war,  because  it 
enabled  the  German  imperialists  to  point 
to  another  seizure  of  world-area  and  to 
inculcate  in  the  German  people  the  con- 
viction that  they  were  being  gradually 
walled  in. 

Q. — What  was  the  original  status 
of  Albania? 

A. — When  Turkey  extended  well  over 
the  Balkan  peninsula,  Albania  was  a 
Turkish  Province.  After  the  Balkan 
War  (1913)  it  was  erected  as  an  inde- 
pendent State. 

Q. — What  happened  to  it  when  the 
great  war  began? 

A. — Prince  William  of  Wied,  who  had 
been  appointed  by  the  London  Ambassa- 
dorial Conference  in  1913  to  rule  the 
country  with  an  International  Commis- 
sion of  Control,  was  driven  out,  and  Al- 
bania became  a  scene  for  rival  native  fac- 
tions. Italy  soon  occupied  portions  of  it, 
and  was  extending  her  hold  when  the 
Austrians  broke  through  Montenegro  in 


1916,  captured  the  important  port  of  Du- 
razzo,  and  advanced  south  as  far  as  Av- 
lona,  then  held  by  Italy. 

Q. — If  the  status  of  Albania  is  to 
be  decided  according  to  race, 
what  country  should  have  it? 

A. — The  Albanians  appear  to  have  been 
a  race  by  themselves.  From  1431,  when 
the  Turks  overran  the  country,  they  be- 
came largely  Turkish  in  ideas  and  habits, 
and  though  they  rebelled  frequently,  the 
rebellions  were  against  the  government 
rather  than  against  Turkish  rule.  In- 
deed, the  most  formidable  rebellions  were 
often  led  by  Turks. 

Q. — What  is  the  objection  to  Al- 
bania's autonomy? 

A. — None,  speaking  in  accordance  with 
the  principle  that  small  nations  should 
have  the  right  of  self-determination.  The 
practical  obstacle  (aside  from  the  desire 
of  Italy  and  Austria  to  possess  or  "pro- 
tect" the  country)  is  that  two-thirds  of 
the  population  is  fanatically  Moslem, 
while  the  other  third  is  Christian  with 
almost  equal  fanaticism.  Add  to  this 
that  the  Christians  again  are  divided  into 
two  not  at  all  friendly  sects,  Roman 
Catholic  and  Greek  Catholic,  and  that  the 
Moslems  also  have  many  sects. 

Q. — Why  should  Italy  and  Austria 
(or  any  other  country)  desire 
to  rule  such  a  difficult  coun- 
try ?  Is  it  rich  ? 

A. — Not  so  far  as  known.  It  has  an 
area  of  only  about  11,000  square  miles 
(a  little  bigger  than  Maryland),  and  its 
population  is  only  about  eighty  to  the 
square  mile.  There  are  few  roads,  except 
military  roads  built  since  the  war.  Agri- 
culture is  almost  non-existent. 

Q. — What,  then,  is  its  value? 

A. — Its  value  is  that  it  extends  along 
the  Adriatic  coast  opposite  Italy  and  has 
many  harbors.  Therefore,  it  is  one  of  the 
strategic  geographical  elements  in  the 
rival  Austrian  and  Italian  struggle  for 
the  control  of  the  Adriatic. 

Q. — Did  Austria  ever  own  Venice? 

A. — She  once  held  all  the  province  of 
Venetia  and  Lombardy,  but  lost  them  in 
1859  when,  under  Cavour,  Sardinia  made 
her  successful  fight  for  Italian  freedom. 
Lombardy  followed  and  thus  control  of 
the  Italian  provinces  was  lost  to  Austria. 


Mainsprings  of  the  War 


She  had  scarcely  emerged  from  this 
struggle,  when,  in  1864,  she  went  to  war 
with  Denmark,  and  she  became  joint 
sovereign  over  Schleswig-Holstein.  This 
addition  to  her  domain  was  but  nominal, 
and  she  lost  it  two  years  later,  when 
Prussia  humbled  her  in  the  war  for  Ger- 
man supremacy. 

Q. — How    many    Italians    are    in 
Dalmatia,  Istria,  and  Fiume? 

A. — About  40  per  cent  of  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Fiume  are  of  Italian  descent.  In 
Dalmatia,  with  a  population  of  some 
600,000,  3  per  cent  only  are  Italian.  In 
Istria,  roughly  a  third  of  a  total  popu- 
lation of  350,000  is  said  to  be  Italian. 
While  there  are  only  about  60,000  Italians 
altogether  in  Austria  there  are  more  than 
700,000  who  speak  Italian  or  modifica- 
tions of  that  language. 

Q. — What     is     the     "Balance     of 
Power"? 

A. — It  is  a  principle  whose  effective 
observance  began  after  the  fall  of  Na- 
poleon, when  the  nations  opposed  to  him 
deemed  that  future  peace  might  be  as- 
sured by  preventing  any  one  nation  from 
again  becoming  over-powerful.  France 
was,  therefore,  stripped  of  so  much  ter- 
ritory that  she  should  never  regain  the 
overwhelming  influence  she  once  had. 
The  principle  was  gradually  extended. 

The  theory  of  the  balance  of  power 
became  the  keystone  of  European  poli- 
tics, and  its  maintenance  has  been  con- 
sidered so  important  in  the  minds  of  the 
statesmen  of  Europe  that  no  scruples 
have  ever  been  allowed  to  stand  in  the 
way  when  it  was  threatened. 

At  first  the  "balance  of  power"  was 
upheld  by  the  combination  of  all  nations 
against  any  one  that  grew  too  large. 
They  made  occasional  treaties  to  act 
jointly,  but  always  the  established  prece- 
dent was  that  if  at  any  time  the  status 
quo  was  destroyed,  the  treaties  were  void. 
Thus,  if  any  state,  however  small,  should 
shift  its  boundaries,  any  other  state 
would  hold  itself  free  to  abrogate  exist- 
ing treaties,  and  form  new  treaties  to  es- 
tablish a  new  balance  of  power. 

Q. — What    was    the    Congress    of 
Vienna? 

A. — It  met  to  re-make  the  territorial 
and  political  map  of  Europe  after  the  fall 
of  Napoleon,  and  it  opened  on  November 
I,  1814.  England,  Austria,  Russia  and 
Prussia  insisted  upon  regulating  all  prob- 
lems themselves  and  excluded  France 


vwTT  tte  dehberations.  King  Louis 
AVllI,  however,  succeeded  in  being  ad- 
mitted with  some  of  the  smaller  states 

Finland  and  the  Duchy  of  Varsow 
(Warsaw)  were  given  to  Russia  by  the 
Congress. 

The  Duchy  of  Posen,  part  of  Saxony 
and  that  of  Hanover,  the  principality  of 
Neuchatel,  Cologne  and  Treves,  were 
ceded  to  Prussia. 

Austria  got  back  Istria,  Dalmatia, 
Friuli,  Mantua,  Venice,  Lombardy,  Tyrol 
and  Croatia. 

The  Pope  recovered  his  states. 

The  house  of  Bourbon  recovered  Na- 
ples and  Madrid. 

England  obtained  the  principal  French 
colonies. 

Q. — How  did  British  control  of  tht 
seas  make  a  cause  for  war? 

A. — Because  it  made  the  United  King- 
dom (a  European  nation  with  a  popula- 
tion not  as  large  as  that  of  Germany) 
the  actual  owner  of  what  is  in  area  and 
population  the  greater  part  of  the  earth: 
or,  at  least,  having  in  the  past  enabled 
Great  Britain  to  acquire  this  vast  posses- 
sion, control  of  the  sea  has  since  then 
enabled  Great  Britain  to  hold  it  and  to 
make  what  is  now  known  as  the  British 
Empire — a  domain  more  than  3^2  times 
as  large  as  the  United  States  with  all  it* 
outlying  possessions,  and  with  a  popula- 
tion more  than  4%  times  as  large. 

Q. — Did  not  Great  Britain  use  this 
power  generously? 

A. — Yes,  very  generously.  Perhaps  no 
great  empire  in  history  has  been  adminis- 
tered with  such  a  minimum  of  onerous 
restrictions  on  rivals. 

Q. — Is    the    British    Empire   very 
old? 

A. — Great  Britain's  hold  on  the  world 
through  her  sea-power  has  given  her  im- 
perial world-power  for  centuries,  but  the 
"Empire"  as  an  embodied  conception  is 
not  very  old.  When  Disraeli  became  Pre- 
mier of  Great  Britain  for  the  second  time 
(1874),  the  chief  colonies  were  Canada 
and  Australia,  each  of  which  had  a  Con- 
stitution of  its  own.  Disraeli  persuaded 
Queen  Victoria  to  be  crowned  Empress 
of  India  in  1876.  He  had  already  solidi- 
fied English  control  in  the  East  by  the 
purchase  of  the  majority  stock  in  the 
Suez  Canal  in  1875. 

With  the  Island  of  Cyprus,  obtained 
after  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  in  1878,  Malta 
and  Gibraltar,  England  secured  control  of 


Questions  and  Answers 


the  Mediterranean.  Disraeli's  successors 
completed  the  water  route  in  1882,  when, 
by  taking  a  protectorate  over  Egypt,  they 
gained  the  western  shore  of  the  Red  Sea. 
England  already  held  the  port  of  Aden  on 
the  eastern  shore.  Aden  in  itself  is  an 
insignificant  desert  town,  but  in  its  strat- 
egic value  for  controlling  the  Red  Sea 
and  the  Suez  Canal  it  is  almost  as  import- 
ant a  possession  as  is  Gibraltar.  After 
gaining  the  Red  Sea,  the  next  step  in  mak- 
ing the  "belt  of  Empire"  was  to  define 
the  whole  southeastern  coast  of  Arabia  as 
being  in  the  British  sphere  of  influence. 

Q. — Is  there  an  Imperial  organiza- 
tion? 

A. — In  1875  the  Imperial  Federation 
League  was  formed  to  promote  closer  re- 
lations with  the  colonies.  Conferences  of 
the  ministers  of  the  colonies  have  been 
held  since  1887,  and  a  permanent  Impe- 
rial staff  of  secretaries  is  kept  in  Lon- 
don. In  1901  the  "League  of  the  Em- 
pire" was  created. 

Q. — What  is  the  political  organiza- 
tion of  the  British  Empire? 

A. — The  colonies  are  divided  into  three 
classes:  (i)  The  self-governing:  Can- 
ada, Newfoundland,  New  Zealand,  Aus- 
tralia and  the  Union  of  South  Africa ;  the 
power  in  these  is  really  exercised  by  a 
responsible  cabinet,  although  the  governor 
is  appointed  by  the  Crown.  (2)  Crown 
colonies,  in  which  the  lower  chamber  is 
elected  and  the  upper  chamber  and  the 
governor  appointed  by  the  Crown ;  these 
are  the  Bahamas,  Jamaica,  Mauritius  and 
Malta.  (3)  Colonies  in  which  a  Crown 
governor  rules  alone — Gibraltar  and  Saint 
Helena. 

In  India,  the  King  as  Emperor  appoints 
a  governor,  called  the  viceroy,  who  is  as- 
sisted by  a  partly  elective  council. 

British  Central  Africa,  British  East 
Africa,  Nigeria  and  Uganda  are  protec- 
torates, and  in  Egypt  the  British  consul- 
general  has  practically  the  powers  of  a 
governor. 

The  most  remarkable  feature  of  the 
English  government  in  Egypt  and  India  is 
that  populations  of  several  hundred  mil- 
lions of  believers  in  Oriental  religions, 
many  of  them  allied  to  the  Turk,  are  held 
in  control  by  a  few  thousand  Englishmen 
specially  trained  for  the  colonial  service. 

Q. — Who  are  the  Prussians? 

A. — The  original  Prussians  were  a 
primitive,  probably  Slavic  people,  also 
known  as  Borussians,  coming  from  south 


of  the  Baltic.  They  were  considered  bar- 
barians by  the  Germans  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  These  Prussians  were  conquered 
by  the  German  Order  of  Teutonic 
Knights,  who  were  burghers  chiefly  from 
Bremen  and  Liibeck.  The  conquest  of 
the  Prussians  began  in  the  early  years  of 
the  thirteenth  century  and  lasted  for  the 
better  part  of  a  hundred  years.  The  in- 
vading Germans  killed  the  men  of  these 
Balto-Slavic  tribes  and  carried  away  the 
women  and  children  into  practical  slavery. 
The  modern  Prussian  is  a  union  of  these 
two  races. 

Q. — Why  did  other  nations  fear  the 
Berlin-Bagdad  project? 

A. — Primarily  there  were,  of  course,  the 
intense  national-commercial  rivalries  that 
exist  between  all  the  States  of  Europe, 
even  when  international  relations  are  very 
friendly.  The  Berlin-Bagdad  railroad 
was  one  of  the  grandiose  commercial 
projects  of  the  earth.  Laughed  at  as  a 
dream  when  it  was  begun,  it  approached 
completion  in  a  time  when  commerce  was 
ready  for  it ;  and  it  was  realized  then  that 
it  must  inevitably  place  Germany  at  a 
huge  advantage. 

Behind  this  direct  reason  for  fear,  how- 
ever, was  also  the  fear  of  what  this  rail- 
road might  mean  to  the  peace  of  Europe 
and  the  balance  of  power.  The  militar- 
ist doctrine  of  the  ruling  classes,  the 
known  plans  of  powerful  German  factions 
for  world-dominance,  and  the  menacing 
methods  of  German  diplomacy,  led  the 
European  world  (and  particularly  Great 
Britain)  to  fear  sinister  motives  behind 
the  commercial  project. 

Q. — Could  a  railroad  in  Asia  Minor 
really  threaten  Great  Britain? 

A. — Yes.  Apart  from  the  commercial 
aspects,  the  German  railroad  would  have 
jeopardized  Great  Britain's  control  of  the 
Persian  Gulf  and  the  control  of  the  oil 
fields  of  Asia  Minor  near  that  gulf.  From 
a  military  viewpoint,  it  was  an  alarming 
menace  against  the  back-door  of  India. 
And  the  railroad  made  a  very  ominous 
threat  against  British  sea  power  in  a  way 
that  is  little  known.  It  threatened  to  di- 
vert from  Great  Britain  the  big  oil-sup- 
ply of  Persia,  which  country  Great  Brit- 
ain had  already  "acquired" — and  oil  is 
essential  to  a  modern  navy. 

Q. — What  is  Pan-Germanism? 

A. — It  was  originally  a  movement  that 
could  be  better  described  by  the  title  "Ger- 
manism," and  in  that  form  devoted  itself 


Mainsprings  of  the  War 


almost  wholly  to  form  a  truly  united 
Germany  by  obliterating  the  sectional 
lines  that  divided  Prussians,  Bavarians, 
Saxons,  Wurtemburgers,  etc.  Gradually, 
in  the  hands  of  jingoes  and  imperialists, 
it  became  a  movement  for  uniting  all  Ger- 
manic peoples  under  one  flag;  and  finally, 
under  the  lead  of  powerful  men,  it  be- 
came a  sweeping  doctrine  that  appears  to 
mean  anything  in  the  way  of  annexation 
of  neighboring  territories  that  the  leaders 
happen  to  think  they  want.  It  must  be 
stated,  however,  that  powerful  as  the 
movement  is,  it  is  strongly  opposed  by 
large  parties  in  Germany,  especially  the 
Socialists.  It  gained  one  great  element 
of  strength  with  the  great  mass  of  people 
through  the  fear  that  was  aroused  in  them 
by  Pan-Slavism. 

Q. — When  did  it  begin  to  threaten 
other  nations? 

A. — About  25  years  ago  when  the  Pan- 
German  League  was  organized.  It  was 
small  at  first,  and  attracted  as  little  atten- 
tion as  do  scores  of  "leagues"  in  this 
country.  But  it  grew  by  incessant  work. 
About  ten  years  ago  it  had  come  to  be  a 
power  that  foreign  nations  had  to  recog- 
nize. 

Q. — Was  it  then  that  Pan-German- 
ism began  openly  to  preach 
annexation  of  neighbors? 

A. — Yes.  But  it  must  be  added  that 
this  preaching  was  largely  by  extremists, 
who  were  bitterly  opposed  within  Ger- 
many, and  even  within  the  ranks  of  the 
Pan-Germanists.  The  greater  strength  of 
the  Pan-German  teaching  with  the  people 
was  the  demand  for  colonial  possessions 
— the  famous  "place  in  the  sun." 

Q. — What  was  the  difference  be- 
tween the  Pan-Germanist  and 
the  British  Imperialist  before 
the  war? 

A. — Both  were  what  we  call  "imperial- 
istic"— meaning  a  desire  for  world-em- 
pire. The  important  difference  was  that 
the  British  Imperialists,  dealing  with  pos- 
sessions practically  complete,  aimed 
chiefly  at  securing  and  solidifying  this 
vast  empire  by  political  internal  bonds — • 
that  is,  they  were  not  endangering  the 
world's  peace  by  seeking  any  gravely 
large  new  conquests.  The  Pan-German- 
ist, on  the  contrary,  looking  at  a  world 
already  possessed  by  others,  could  not 
possibly  inculcate  Pan-Germanism  in  the 
minds  of  the  German  people  without  at 
the  same  time  (whether  he  wanted  to  or 
not)  teaching  them  that  sooner  or  later 


they  must  wrest  their  "share"  from  hands 
that  already  held  it. 

Q.— Our  term  for  Imperialism  is 
Jingoism,  is  it  not? 

A.— Not  exactly.  The  United  States 
has  had  so  little  actual  teaching  of  im- 
perialism that  we  have  no  native  term  for 
it.  What  Americans  understand  by  jin- 
goism is  an  exaggerated  sense  of  nation- 
alism, which  leads  the  jingo  to  assert  that 
his  own  nation  has  pre-eminent  rights  and 
that  anything  done  by  other  nations  in 
opposition  is  an  offense  which  should  be 
punished. 

Q.— Is  French  Chauvinism  not 
somewhat  like  this? 

A.— It  is.  It  was,  however,  more  seri- 
ous, because,  since  1870,  the  French  Chau- 
vinist has  had  the  loss  of  Alsace-Lorraine 
as  something  on  which  to  base  a  consist- 
ent campaign.  Therefore,  while  Ameri- 
can jingoism  became  a  political  factor 
only  very  occasionally,  to  vanish  again 
with  the  passing  of  the  occurrence  that 
brought  it  out,  Chauvinism  has  been  a 
steady  and  powerful  factor  in  French 
political  life. 

Q. — Whence  did  it  get  its  name? 

A. — From  one  of  Napoleon's  soldiers 
who  had  such  unreasoning  patriotism  that 
even  his  comrades  laughed  at  him.  His 
name  was  Chauvin,  and  after  the  fall  of 
Napoleon  the  French  public  seized  on  the 
name  and  applied  it  to  the  old  soldiers 
who  still  idolized  the  Emperor. 

Q. — Just  what  classes  in  Germany 
and  Great  Britain  give  sup- 
port to  these  theories? 

A. — All  classes,  when  the  originators  of 
the  movements  succeed  in  presenting  some 
particularly  powerful  reason.  But  if  the 
question  means  what  classes  are  by  nature 
and  thought  supporters  of  these  policies, 
the  answer  may  be:  that  just  as  the  two 
policies  were  much  alike,  despite  the  fact 
that  they  have  caused  war,  so  their  pro- 
tagonists in  both  nations  were  much  alike, 
despite  the  fact  that  they  so  bitterly  con- 
demn each  other. 

Q. — What  are  these  protagonists? 

A. — Agrarianism  (mostly  supported  by 
what  the  world  knows  now  as  Junkers) 
in  Germany,  and  Landlordism  in  Great 
Britain.  The  English  equivalent  of  the 
German  word  "Junker"  is  "Squire." 
Both  classes  are  land-holders,  and  most  of 


8 


Questions  and  Answers 


the  land  is  rural   (agrarian  as  the  Ger- 
mans call  it). 

Q. — Why  should  these  classes  want 
foreign  expansion? 

A. — Specifically  for  the  general  reason 
that  national  expansion  means  increased 
wealth,  and  that  an  increased  revenue 
flowing  in  from  foreign  holdings  will  tend 
to  reduce  home-taxes,  which  bear  heavily 
on  land.  But  there  is  a  most  powerful 
psychological  reason,  also.  The  land- 
holding  classes  of  Germany  and  Great 
Britain  are  intensely  conservative.  For 
generations  they  have  been,  indeed,  the 
bulwark  of  conservatism.  This  conserva- 
tism is  expressed,  and  always  has  been 
expressed,  by  bitter  hostility  to  any  en- 
croachment on  vested  privilege  or  estab- 
lished order  within. 

A  corollary  to  this  method  of  thought 
Is  an  almost  equal  hostility  to  what  they 
consider  encroachments  from  without. 
Thus  they  tend  naturally  to  support  gov- 
ernments with  powerful  nationalistic 
aims. 

Q. — What  other  things  strained 
Anglo-German  relations? 

A. — There  was  one  mighty  factor 
which  was  due  to  neither  political  policy 
nor  to  deliberate  enmity.  It  was  the 
growth  of  international  trade  throughout 
the  world.  German  unity,  as  produced  by 
the  Franco-Prussian  War,  and  the  ex- 
traordinary development  of  a  common- 
wealth bound  together  by  an  absolutely 
amazing  co-ordination  of  legislation, 
executive  government,  education,  industry 
and  labor,  changed  Germany  from  an  ar- 
tistic and  philosophical  nation  to  a  com- 
mercial one  in  practically  one  generation. 

Q. — What  did  this  mean  to  the  rest 
of  the  world? 

A. — In  1870  when  the  German  Imperial 
Federation  was  proclaimed  in  Versailles 
amid  conquered  France,  Germany  was  so 
negligible  commercially  and  nautically 
that  Great  Britain,  generally  keenly  sensi- 
tive to  rivalry,  not  only  felt  no  apprehen- 
sion, but  welcomed  the  new  Empire. 
Thirty  years  later,  with  the  generation 
that  had  witnessed  the  Franco-Prussian 
War  still  alive,  Germany  was  challenging 
Great  Britain's  place  as  the  world's  lead- 
ing commercial  nation. 

Q. — Had  Great  Britain  fallen  be- 
hind in  scientific  development 
or  commercial  capacity? 

A. — Great  Britain  was  abreast  of  Ger- 
many in  intelligence  and  ability.  But 


Great  Britain's  vast  commercial  and  po- 
litical machinery  was  the  result  of  cen- 
turies of  growth.  Its  very  vastness  and 
power  made  difficult  any  swift,  radical 
changes.  The  German  machinery  was 
new,  very  radically  fitted  for  the  modern 
conditions  in  which  it  had  been  created. 
In  addition  it  was,  by  very  virtue  of  its 
novelty,  very  compact,  and,  so  to  speak, 
mobile. 

Q. — How  did  this  cause  military 
rivalry? 

A. — In  the  ancient  historical  way.  As 
soon  as  a  German  merchant  marine  was 
created,  a  German  navy  followed  as  the 
almost  inevitable  consequence. 

Q. — Had  Germany  not  been  a  sea- 
power  before  1870? 

A. — Germany  never  had  been  a  sea- 
power.  The  so-called  German  Free 
Cities,  forming  the  famous  Hanseatic 
League  (1241-1630),  with  Hamburg,  Lii- 
beck,  Dantzig,  and  other  cities,  had  owned 
one  of  the  most  powerful  mercantile  ma- 
rines in  history,  but  they  had  no  war- 
ships that  could  be  called  a  navy.  Dur- 
ing all  the  centuries  following  the  dis- 
covery of  America,  Great  Britain's  naval 
supremacy  had  been  challenged  seriously 
only  by  Spain  and  France.  In  1870  the 
only  naval  rival  was  France. 

Q.— What  right  did  Great  Britain 
have  to  object  to  Germany's 
naval  building? 

A. — No  right  at  all,  or  all  the  right  in 
the  world,  just  as  Germany  had  no  right 
at  all  to  build  a  navy  or  all  the  right  in 
the  world.  It  was  a  simple  and  straight 
matter  of  national  interest. 

Q. — Were  there  attempts  at  peace- 
able agreement? 

A. — There  were  many.  But  they  all 
were  based  on  premises  that  were  inex- 
orably antagonistic.  Great  Britain  held 
that  any  agreement  must  be  founded  on 
her  national  policy  and  the  unbroken  tra- 
ditions of  her  people  that  the  British 
Navy  must  be  larger  than  any  other.  The 
Germans  held  that  it  must  be  recognized 
that  their  power  and  their  mercantile  in- 
terests demanded  a  navy  at  least  equal  in 
strength  to  that  of  any  other  nation. 

Q. — What  justice  was  there  in  the 
British  contention? 

A. — Complete  justice,  considering  that 
the  world  was  one  in  which  a  final  ap- 


Mainsprings  of  the  War 


peal  was  sure  to  be  the  appeal  to  war. 
Great  Britain  at  home  was  an  insular 
nation  that  could  be  made  wholly  and 
almost  instantly  helpless  by  a  superior 
enemy  navy.  It  requires  no  imagination 
to  visualize  what  this  would  mean.  With 
ports  blockaded,  cables  cut,  and  all  her 
government  isolated  from  the  outer 
world,  the  British  Empire  as  an  Empire 
might  fall  to  pieces  in  time  of  war  like  a 
house  of  cards — not  because  her  Domin- 
ions would  not  wish  to  help  her,  but  be- 
cause they  would  lack  a  central  head,  and 
would  lack  control  of  the  seas  to  bring 
help.  Without  a  mighty  navy,  Great 
Britain  could  be  destroyed  though  not  an 
enemy  soldier  were  landed  on  her  shores. 

Q. — Was  there  similar  justice  in 
Germany's  contention? 

A. — Not  to  nearly  the  same  degree.  The 
chief  assertion  that  Germany  could  make 
was  that  her  commerce  would  be  de- 
stroyed in  time  of  war,  if  there  were  no 
German  navy  adequate  to  its  full  protec- 
tion— that  is,  a  navy  strong  enough  to 
hold  the  seas  open  for  German  mercantile 
ships. 

We  have  seen  that  Germany  cannot  be 
crushed  by  mere  sea-power.  She  can  be 
damaged  enormously,  as  she  has  been 
damaged;  but  she  can  survive. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  the  Franco- 
Russian  Alliance  was  formed 
immediately  after  the  Franco- 
Prussian  War? 

A. — No.  A  Franco-Russian  Entente 
was  first  spoken  of  about  1890,  when 
plans  for  united  military  action  were  dis- 
cussed between  French  and  Russian  gen- 
erals. In  1891  some  sort  of  a  diplomatic 
protocol  was  >  signed  about  a  defensive 
alliance,  and  in  1894  a  military  conven- 
tion was  ratified.  It  was  not,  however, 
until  1897  that  France  and  Russia  were 
officially  stated  to  be  allies.  There  had 
been  a  "rapprochement"  between  the  two 


countries    for   several   years   before   any 
direct  action  was  taken. 

Balkan  events,  again,  may  be  regarded 
as  being  responsible  for  the  alliance,  as 
they  have  been  responsible  for  so  many 
occurrences  in  Europe.  The  revolution  in 
Eastern  Roumeha  and  the  union  of  that 
province  with  Bulgaria,  followed  by  the 
berbians  attack  on  the  principality  and 
their  utter  defeat  by  Prince  Alexander 
and  his  Bulgarians  at  Slavnitza,  caused 
violent  estrangement  between  Austria 
and  Russia,  and  brought  about  the  end  of 
the  Three  Emperors'  League  (Germany, 
Russia,  and  Austria),  Russia  refusing  to 
renew  it  when  it  expired  in  1890,  and  in- 
stead formally  allying  herself  with  France 
a  few  years  later. 

Q.-— Have  there  been  many  wars 
since  the  Franco-Prussian  War 
in  1870? 

A. — There  has  been  hardly  a  year  with- 
out war  somewhere  with  some  European 
power  engaged  in  it.  During  this  period, 
to  mention  only  the  more  important 
events,  France  and  Italy  have  taken  North 
Africa,  England  has  taken  South  Africa 
and  Egypt,  Russia  has  taken  Manchuria 
and  Mongolia,  and  Japan  in  turn  has 
taken  part  of  it  from  her,  and  England 
and  Russia  have  taken  Persia.  Of  lesser 
campaigns  there  are  the  taking  of  part 
of  Siam,  the  conquest  of  Madagascar,  and 
the  conquest  of  Indo-China. 

Q. — Did  not  France  and  England 
clash  on  the  Nile? 

A. — Yes.  It  was  the  famous  Marchand 
case  of  1896.  A  French  force  under 
Colonel  Marchand  had  been  operating 
along  the  upper  Nile  in  an  attempt  to  take 
the  territory,  when  Great  Britain  hurried 
a  superior  force  to  the  scene.  France  was 
much  humiliated  by  the  fact  that  her  men 
had  been  driven  out  practically  at  the 
point  of  the  bayonet  and  for  a  time  the 
incident  threatened  serious  consequences. 


THE  BALKAN  POWDER  MAGAZINE 


Q. — What  has  made  the  Balkans 
a  world-menace? 

A. — Secret  international  diplomacy 
which  concerned  itself  mainly  with  Con- 
stantinople and  the  Dardanelles,  for  the 
reason  that  these  points  were  among  the 
most  vital  strategic  points  of  the  world 
both  for  commerce  and  war. 

The  aspects  of  the  diplomatic  intrigues 
have  varied  widely.  First  it  was  Russia 
against  Turkey.  Then  it  became  Great 
Britain  against  Russia,  with  Turkey  little 
more  than  a  pawn  in  the  game.  With  the 
Berlin-Bagdad  railroad  scheme,  it  became 
Germany  against  Russia  and  Great 
Britain  (the  latter  particularly). 

Then  there  were  the  modern  rivalries 
of  Austria  and  Italy  for  the  Adriatic 
coasts  of  the  Balkans.  In  the  course  of 
this  diplomacy,  the  wildly  tangled  internal 
feuds  of  the  Balkan  people  were  used  for 
the  purposes  of  the  great  powers,  and 
thus  no  concerted  effort  ever  was  made 
to  solve  problems  that  threatened  the 
peace  of  Europe  continually. 

Q. — Why  did  Turkish  possession 
of  the  Balkans  have  interna- 
tional significance? 

A. — Because  the  Turks  thus  controlled 
all  the  rich  eastern  part  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean. They  had  all  the  Greek  ports  and 
the  yEgean  Sea,  Greece  being  a  Turkish 
possession  till  the  War  of  Liberation 
(1821-1829).  Trade  rivalries  soon  made 
Turkey  and  the  Balkans  a  "habit"  with 
European  diplomats. 

Q. — Did  Constantinople  play  a  big 
part? 

A. — Yes.  Russian  diplomacy  had  Con- 
stantinople for  a  constant  objective. 

Q. — Was  this  the  beginning  of 
Germanic  counter-intrigue? 

A. — No.  The  German  Empire  was  not 
in  existence  when  the  Balkans  first  were 
a  contested  area  for  European  diplomats. 
Austria-Hungary  was  busy  defending  her- 
self against  Prussia  on  the  north  and 
Venetia  and  other  Latin  enemies  and 
rivals  to  the  west. 

After  the  German  Empire  was  formed, 
Bismarck  declared  that  all  the  Balkans 
were  not  worth  the  bones  of  a  single 
Pomeranian  grenadier. 


Q. — Whose  diplomacy  made  the 
Balkans  dangerous  in  the  be- 
ginning ? 

A. — The  rival  diplomacy  of  Russia  and 
Great  Britain,  with  Turkey,  of  course,  as 
a  third  party.  But  Turkey's  diplomacy 
was  purely  defensive,  for  the  Turks  had 
become  a  weak  power  after  Greece  fell 
away,  and  Russia  and  Great  Britain  were 
the  big  ones  of  Europe.  Great  Britain 
feared  that  Russian  access  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean would  endanger  her  "road  to 
India." 

Q. — Was  Great  Britain's  fear  jus- 
tified? 

A.— Many  great  and  wise  Englishmen 
scoffed  at  the  idea;  but  it  is  true,  cer- 
tainly, that  Russia  always  had  her  eye 
fixed  on  India,  or  at  least  on  the  Asiatic 
frontier  of  India.  At  any  rate  it  became 
a  tenet,  accepted  by  practically  all  Eng- 
lishmen, that  Russia  must  not  be  per- 
mitted to  have  Constantinople.  The  result 
was  that  British  diplomacy  in  the  Bal- 
kans directed  itself  for  many  years  to 
keeping  the  door  of  the  Dardanelles 
locked  against  Russia. 

Q. — What  did  Russia  do? 

A. — Russia  as  a  nation  did  not  "do" 
anything.  The  Russian  people,  unlike  the 
English  people,  had  no  tenet  about  Con- 
stantinople. Millions  of  them  probably 
did  not  know  where  Constantinople  was. 
But  the  Russian  diplomats  were  bound  to 
unlock  the  door.  When  they  were  not 
trying  to  unlock  it  by  way  of  the  Darda- 
nelles, they  were  trying  to  expand  through 
the  Balkans  and  thus  reach  the  Mediter- 
ranean over-land. 

Q. — Was  access  to  the  warm  sea 
the  only  Russian  reason  for 
Balkan  intrigue? 

A. — No.  Russia  was  land-hungry,  for 
no  really  adequate  and  sensible  reason, 
since  she  already  had  vast  areas  that  she 
was  not  putting  to  any  use.  But  expan- 
sion was  an  obsession  with  her  diplo- 
mats. 

Q. — Was  Great  Britain's  fear  for 
India  her  only  reason  for  op- 
posing Russia? 

A. — No.  The  consideration  of  commer- 
cial rivalry  played  its  part.  It  is  true  that 


10 


The  Balkan  Powder  Magazine 


II 


Russia  did  not  appear  to  be,  or  to  be  likely 
to  become,  a  formidable  rival  to  Great 
Britain,  which  then  controlled  the  world's 
trade.  But  the  human  objection  of  one 
big  nation  to  giving  another  big  nation 
any  advantage  was  sufficient.  It  was  sim- 
ply a  part  of  the  world-game  for  world- 
power,  and  the  diplomats  played  it  with 
immense  zest  even  when  there  was  no 
specific  real  stake.  A  "diplomatic  vic- 
tory" was  stake  enough.  And,  of  course, 
a  diplomatic  victory  in  the  Balkans  often 
meant  a  very  real  party  victory  at  home. 

Q. — Why  has  Constantinople  al- 
ways been  a  focus  of  world- 
interest? 

A. — The  great  general  reason  is  that 
from  the  very  beginning  it  was  a  focus 
of  commerce — not  because  it  was  strictly 
a  commercial  city,  but  because  it  occu- 
pied a  position  that  commanded  the  ave- 
nues of  trade  between  Asia  and  Europe. 
This  was  the  richest  trade-route  known 
to  Europe  before  the  Portuguese  discov- 
ered the  route  around  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope.  Even  the  Norsemen  in  the  old 
Viking  days  sought  Constantinople. 
When  navigation  became  scientific,  its 
strategic  importance  became  less  and  re- 
mained so  for  a  considerable  period. 

Q. — When  did  Constantinople  re- 
sume its  old  diplomatic  im- 
portance? 

A. — When  Russia  began  to  strive 
mightily  for  an  exit  to  the  Mediterranean. 
Then  the  Suez  Canal  was  cut.  Finally, 
the  progress  of  railroad  building  brought 
grandiose  world-plans.  The  latter  phase 
of  modern  development  instantly  re-set 
Constantinople  into  its  ancient  place  as 
the  strategic  city  for  Europe-Asia  trade, 
because  a  great  European-Asiatic  railroad 
could  best  pass  through  it. 

Q. — What  Treaty  stipulated  that 
Russia  should  have  no  warship 
in  the  Black  Sea? 

A. — The  treaty  of  Paris,  which  ended 
the  Crimean  War.  It  opened  the  Black 
Sea  to  the  commercial  navies  of  the 
world,  and  closed  it  to  all  vessels  of  war. 
Thus  Russia  herself  was  not  allowed  to 
maintain  warships  there.  It  further  for- 
bade the  establishment  of  arsenals  upon 
the  shores  of  this  inland  sea.  It  was  in- 
deed to  secure  this  embargo  that  Great 
Britain  continued  to  go  on  fighting  after 
France  and  Russia  were  anxious  to  stop. 
The  treaty  was  drawn  up  in  1856.  Four- 


teen years  later  war  broke  out  between 
France  and  Prussia,  and  Russia,  taking 
advantage  of  it,  repudiated  this  clause 
which  neutralized  the  Black  Sea,  and  be- 
gan to  build  a  fleet  there  and  erect  ar- 
senals and  make  shipyards.  It  is  a  sug- 
gestive illustration  of  the  manner  in 
which  an  irksome  condition  forced  on  a 
nation  can  be  got  rid  of  when  one  or 
more  of  those  who  imposed  it  become  en- 
gaged in  war,  and  can  no  longer  spare 
military  force  to  coerce  their  former 
enemy. 

Q. — How  did  European  diplomacy 
affect  the  Balkan  people? 

A. — In  this  devious  game  of  politics, 
the  aspirations  of  Balkan  races,  their  riv- 
alries, the  internal  political  strifes,  their 
religious  prejudices  and  enmities,  and 
their  various  and  conflicting  desires  were 
all  played  upon  by  the  rival  diplomacies. 
These  internal  and  often  petty  occasions 
for  unrest  were  so  utilized  that  in  time, 
instead  of  being  a  mere  toy  for  the  dip- 
lomats, they  gave  the  diplomats  sore  prob- 
lems. Thus  came  the  condition  that  led 
the  British  correspondents  to  devote  so 
much  of  their  writings  and  speculations  to 
"trouble  in  the  Balkans." 

Q. — Is  this  why  Balkan  problems 
never  were  settled? 

A. — It  was  largely  the  reason.  The  in- 
ternal problems  were  immensely  complex 
and  many  of  them,  it  must  be  said  truth- 
fully, probably  were  insoluble,  except  as  a 
matter  of  slow  improvement  to  be 
achieved  by  time,  education  and  struggle. 
All  were  of  a  nature  that  demanded  the 
utmost  unselfishness  and  practical  ideal- 
ism, if  the  great  nations  were  to  be  of 
any  true  help.  The  world  was  not  ripe 
for  such  idealism.  The  result  was  that 
while  many  attempts  were  made  to  "solve 
the  Balkan  problem"  honestly  and  justly, 
such  attempts  remained  sporadic  and  the 
world's  rival  diplomacies  always  de- 
stroyed any  work  that  was  done. 

Q. — Did  England  play  a  great  part 
in  settling  the  Dardanelles 
question? 

A.— Great  Britain,  through  Lord  Bea- 
consfield,  was  largely  responsible  for  the 
revision  of  the  treaty  of  San  Stefano, 
which  had  terminated  the  struggle  be- 
tween Russia  and  Turkey.  That  treaty 
was  drawn  up  while  the  Russian  armies 
were  looking  down  on  Constantinople 
from  the  Chatalja  heights. 

It  created  a  Greater  Bulgaria,  which  m- 


12 


Questions  and  Answers 


eluded  Salonika  and  most  of  Macedonia. 
Turkey  was,  however,  left  in  possession 
of  the  Dardanelles,  although  Russia  ob- 
tained the  right  of  free  passage  through 
the  Straits. 

The  Great  Powers  insisted  upon  a  re- 
vision of  the  treaty,  Great  Britain  going 
so  far  as  to  send  her  fleet  to  the  Levant 
and  threaten  Russia  with  war  unless  she 
agreed.  Russia  gave  way,  and  a  con- 
ference was  held  at  Berlin,  where  Prince 
Bismarck  and  Lord  Beaconsfield  were  the 
two  dominating  figures.  They  worked 
together  against  Russia,  and  gave  to 
Turkey  a  new  lease  of  life  in  Europe;  de- 
priving Bulgaria  of  any  access  to  the 
jEgean  and  putting  Bosnia  and  Herze- 
govina under  the  control  of  Austria-Hun- 
gary. They  also  made  Russia  agree  not 
to  have  any  warships  on  the  Black  Sea. 
Years  afterward  Lord  Salisbury,  who  as- 
sisted Lord  Beaconsfield  on  that  occasion, 
made  the  famous  remark  that  at  the  Ber- 
lin Conference  Great  Britain  had  "backed 
the  wrong  horse." 

Q. — Was  British-Russian  rivalry 
active  just  before  the  war? 

A. — Great  Britain  had  largely  with- 
drawn from  very  strenuous  diplomacy  in 
Turkey  and  the  Balkans. 

Q. — What  reasons  were  there  for 
British  withdrawal? 

A. — British  fear  of  Russian  aggression 
against  the  Asiatic  boundaries  of  India 
had  been  much  lessened  after  Russia's 
defeat  in  the  Russo-Japanese  War.  The 
closer  knitting  together  of  her  Domin- 
ions, as  expressed  in  the  great  Imperial 
movement  that  swept  the  British  world 
after  the  South  African  war,  had  given 
her  an  additional  feeling  of  security.  Be- 
yond all  this,  her  attention  had  to  be  de- 
voted to  a  new  and  very  serious  rival — 
Germany,  a  rival  that  did  not  merely 
threaten  a  single  possession,  but  threat- 
ened all,  by  challenging  British  control 
of  the  seas. 

Q. — Had  British  diplomacy  in  the 
Balkans  anything  to  do  with 
the  war? 

A. — For  some  years  German  diplomacy 
had  been  the  dominant  diplomacy  in  Tur- 
key and  the  Balkans,  with  Russian  and 
Austro-Hungarian  diplomacy  playing  a 
very  dangerous  game  that  was  largely 
their  own.  German  diplomacy  concerned 
itself  most  with  maintaining  power  in 
Turkey,  developing  the  Berlin-Bagdad 
Railroad,  and,  presumably,  laying  foun- 
dations for  an  ultimate  grip  on  the  Meso- 


potamian  lands.  Austria-Hungary  and 
Russia,  meantime,  were  playing  for  power 
within  and  over  Balkan  States.  Italy 
also  entered  Balkan  diplomacy  with  a 
view  particularly  to  the  Adriatic  coast  of 
Albania. 

Q. — Did  Pan-Slavism  play  a  large 
part  at  this  time? 

A. — A  very  large  part.  Austria-Hun- 
gary, of  course,  charged  that  the  Pan- 
Slav  propaganda  was  Russia's  work.  The 
truth  probably  was  that  the  Pan-Slavic 
movement,  undoubtedly  sincere  and  pa- 
triotic, was  encouraged  by  Russian  se- 
cret diplomacy  for  its  own  ends ;  and 
that  actually  Austria-Hungary,  by  stupid 
attempts  at  repression,  helped  to  direct 
Pan-Slavism  against  herself. 

Q. — Once  we  heard  continually  of 
Macedonia.  What  part  did  it 
play  as  a  cause  for  the  war? 

A. — No  direct  part.  Macedonia  occu- 
pied world  attention  because  of  the  strug- 
gle to  throw  off  Turkish  domination,  and 
this  struggle  had  a  chief  part  in  bring- 
ing a  union  of  Greece,  Bulgaria,  Serbia 
and  Montenegro  against  Turkey,  The 
war  of  1912-1913  followed,  and  Turkey 
lost  the  greater  part  of  her  Balkan  ter- 
ritory. The  Balkan  Allies,  however,  fell 
out  over  the  division  of  the  conquered 
territory,  and  particularly  over  Mace- 
donia. 

"National  aspirations"  played  the  great- 
est part  in  the  quarrel.  Each  of  the  in- 
volved nations  alleged  that  its  own  na- 
tionals inhabited  contested  parts  of  the 
province.  Bulgaria  declared  that  Greece 
and  Serbia  were  trying  to  take  parts  that 
contained  purely  Bulgarian  population, 
and  war  began  June,  1913. 

Q. — What  was  the  result  of  this 
Second  Balkan  War? 

A. — This  war  laid  the  direct  foundation 
that,  in  turn,  led  to  the  present  alignment 
of  Bulgaria  with  the  Central  Powers. 
Roumania,  which  had  taken  no  part  in 
the  war  against  Turkey,  declared  war  on 
Bulgaria,  joining  Greece  and  Serbia. 

Q. — What  forces  were  engaged  in 
the  Balkan  War? 

A. — The  exact  numbers  are  not  known. 
The  Balkan  Allies  took  the  field  with 
655,000  men,  the  Turks  with  368,000,  but 
far  more  men  were  engaged  as  the  war 
went  on.  The  total  loss  in  the  two  wars 
is  estimated  at  348,000  killed  and 
wounded;  the  cost  was  $1,225,000,000. 


The  Balkan  Powder  Magazine 


Q. — Was  Roumania  interested  in 
Macedonia? 

A. — Not  directly.  Roumania  lies  north 
of  Bulgaria,  and  none  of  her  territory 
is  anywhere  near  Macedonia,  which  lies 
south  and  southwest  of  Bulgaria. 

Q. — Then  why  did  Roumania  join 
in  that  war? 

A. — Roumanian  patriots  hold  that  Rou- 
mania did  it  to  punish  Bulgaria  for 
treacherously  attacking  Greece  and  Ser- 
bia. Bulgarians  hold  that  Russia,  fear- 
ing a  great  Bulgaria,  encouraged  the 
same  fear  in  Roumania. 

Q. — Was  there  division  of  territory 
after  this  war? 

A. — Bulgaria  lost  all  of  the  Mace- 
donian territory  that  she  had  coveted,  ex- 
cept for  a  small  strip  that  gave  her  lim- 
ited access  to  the  yEgean  Sea.  Roumania 
took  from  her  a  strip  of  territory  on  the 
Black  Sea,  the  Dobrudja. 

Q. — What  did  Greece  and  Serbia 
win? 

A. — Greece  won  that  part  of  Macedonia 
which  contains  the  Gulf  of  Saloniki  with 
the  important  port  of  that  name.  Serbia 
got  a  part  of  Macedonia  that  contains  the 
city  of  Monastir,  and  brought  her  fron- 
tiers down  to  the  Greek  frontier. 

Q. — How  did  this  affect  the  situa- 
tion in  the  Great  War? 

A. — It  made  it  impossible  for  the  Bal- 
kan States  to  form  a  united  front  of 
neutrality.  Distrusting  each  other,  they 
offered  a  rich  field  for  the  secret  diploma- 
cies of  the  belligerents.  Greece  was  urged 
on  the  one  side  to  aid  Serbia  on  the 
ground  that  a  more  or  less  definite  treaty 
obligation  compelled  her  to  do  so.  The 
other  side  worked  to  keep  Greece  neutral. 
Russia  worked  on  Roumania  to  attack 
Austria-Hungary,  and  the  Central  Em- 
pires worked  to  ke«p  Roumania  neutral 
by  raising  a  Bulgarian  menace. 

Q. — Why  were  the  Central  Powers 
content  merely  to  keep  Rou- 
mania neutral? 

A. — They  had  nothing  that  they  could 
offer  as  the  price  of  military  assistance. 
Roumanian  aspirations  were  for  a  part 
of  Transylvania,  that  portion  of  far  east- 
ern Hungary  separated  from  Roumania 
by  the  Carpathians.  Austria-Hungary 


13 

had  not  the  slightest  intention  of  losing 
this.  The  only  other  territory  that  could 
have  been  offered  to  Roumania  by  the 
Central  Powers  would  have  been  the  Rus- 
sian province  of  Bessarabia,  lying  along 
Roumania's  northwest  boundary.  As  the 
Central  Powers  held  none  of  that  terri- 
tory, an  offer  of  it  would  have  been 
rather  empty— too  much  in  the  manner 
of  you  may  have  it  if  you'll  take  it." 

Q- — Are  the  Roumanians  Slavs? 

A.— No.  They  proudly  claim  to  be  the 
sole  descendants  of  the  ancient  Roman 
Empire,  which  flourished  at  Constanti- 
nople until  its  fall  in  1453.  Benig  sur- 
rounded on  all  sides,  there  has  been  a 
large  Slav  infiltration  to  the  Roman  blood, 
and  the  stock  is  not  a  pure  one.  Under 
the  administration  of  Charles  and  Queen 
Elizabeth  (the  widely  known  Carmen 
Sylva),  the  country  grew  into  a  prosper- 
ous agricultural  region.  Bucharest  be- 
came a  "miniature  Paris  of  the  Balkans." 

The  Roumanians  are  so  insistent  on 
their  Latin  origin  that  they  object  to  the 
new  spelling  "Rumanian,"  because  it 
leaves  out  the  "o"  that  indicates  their 
Roman  blood. 

Q. — How  long  has  Roumania  been 
a  separate  nation? 

A. — Roumania  was  the  first  state  to  es- 
tablish its  freedom  from  Turkish  domin- 
ion when  the  principalities  Moldavia  and 
Wallachia  became  autonomous  at  the  end 
of  the  Crimean  War  (1856).  Five  years 
later  the  two  territories  united  and  elected 
Prince  Cuza,  a  Roumanian  noble,  to  rule 
them.  He  was  forced  to  abdicate  in  1866. 
Prince  Charles  of  Hohenzollern-Sigma- 
ringen  was  then  invited  to  rule,  and  ac- 
cepted. 

Q.— What  kept  Greece  neutral? 

A. — The  Allies  have  always  held  that 
Greece  was  kept  neutral  by  the  intense 
Germanicism  of  King  Constantine.  Con- 
stantine, however,  maintains  that  he  real- 
ized from  the  beginning  that  the  Central 
Powers  possessed  military  superiority, 
and  that  Greece  would  have  been  crushed 
uselessly  had  she  joined  the  Allies. 

Q. — Why  did  Greece  not  join  the 
Central  Powers? 

A. — Constantine  maintains  that  it  was 
due  to  his  genuine  desire  for  keeping 
Greece  out  of  the  war.  But  Constantine 
is  one  of  the  very  talented  military  chiefs 
of  Europe,  and  he,  no  doubt,  realized  that 
the  Central  Powers  could  not  feed  Greece, 


Questions  and  Answers 


while  the  Allies  could  starve  Greece  by 
blockade  and,  probably,  force  an  invasion. 

Q. — What  was  Bulgaria's  position  ? 

A. — Bulgaria  was  afraid  of  Roumania, 
and  bitterly  antagonistic  to  both  Rou- 
mania and  Serbia.  This  antagonism  far 
outweighed  her  antagonism  to  Greece. 
She  wanted  to  get  the  Dobrudja  back 
from  Roumania  and  her  desired  share  of 
Macedonia  from  Serbia. 

Q. — How  did  this  affect  belliger-' 
cnt  diplomacy  in  Bulgaria? 

A. — It  gave  the  Central  Powers  a  de- 
cided advantage.  They  could  well  afford 
to  promise  Bulgaria  all  of  Serbian  Mace- 
donia, for  in  this  case  they  were  offering 
enemy  territory,  and  Bulgarian  military 
men  could  see  that  it  could  be  conquered 
with  absolute  certainty,  given  a  con- 
certed drive  through  Serbia.  The  Allies, 
on  the  other  hand,  could  not  well  prom- 
ise Bulgaria  any  territory  that  belonged 
to  Serbia,  one  of  their  own  allies.  Nor 
could  they  well  offer  Bulgaria  any  exten- 
sion of  territory  into  Greek  Macedonia. 

Q. — How  did  the  Allies  try  to 
counter  the  Central  Powers' 
diplomacy  in  Bulgaria? 

A. — Largely  by  endeavoring  to  bring  in 
Greece  and  Roumania  on  their  side.  This 
would  have  placed  Bulgaria  between  two 
fires,  as  in  the  second  Balkan  War. 

Roumania  made  it  ^evident  that  she  was 
prepared  to  act,  provided  she  was  assured 
of  complete  security  and  support.  This 
could  not  be  guaranteed  unless  Greece 
also  joined  the  Allies, ,  so  that  Bulgaria, 
pinched  between  Roumania  and  Greece, 
should  be  made  harmless  or  find  it  wise 
to  ally  herself  with  them  against  the  Cen- 
tral Empires. 

Q. — Did  Greek  refusal  to  enter  the 
war  really  defeat  allied  diplo- 
macy? 

A. — It  did.  It  led  Roumania  to  adopt 
a  waiting  game,  and  it  made  Bulgaria  feel 
safe  and  bold.  The  Allies  were  t"hus 
forced  at  last  to  play  the  first  hand.  On 
October  4,  1915,  Russia  declared  war  on 
Bulgaria.  On  the  next  day  the  Allies  oc- 
cupied the  Greek  Macedonian  port  Salon- 
iki  and  landed  their  forces.  On  October 
14  Bulgaria  declared  war  on  Serbia. 

Q. — Did  this  bring  Roumania  in? 

A. — It  did  not.  Simultaneously  with  the 
occupation  of  Saloniki  by  the  Allies,  the 


Central  Powers  began  a  terrific  drive 
through  Serbia.  Bulgaria  began  to  drive 
from  the  other  direction,  and  the  result 
was  such  an  overwhelming  campaign,  with 
such  a  swift  and  spectacular  complete  vic- 
tory, that  Roumania  retained  strict  neu- 
trality. 

Q. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the 
Balkan  peoples  cold-bloodedly 
looked  for  the  best  bargain? 

A. — By  no  means.  The  foregoing  ap- 
plies only  to  the  diplomats  and  to  the 
secret  diplomacy  of  the  situation.  The 
people  of  Greece,  Bulgaria,  and  Roumania 
were  actuated  by  the  same  honestly  pa- 
triotic desires  as  are  the  people  of  other 
nations.  Unfortunately,  a  large  part  of 
the  Balkan  population  is  peasantry,  brave, 
devoted,  but  not  well-read  or  much  versed 
in  government.  This  left  the  policies  al- 
most wholly  in  the  hands  of  rulers  or 
cabinets. 

Q. — Why  did  Roumania  finally 
enter  the  war? 

A. — The  Roumanjans  declare  that  Rus- 
sia forced  Roumania  to  do  so,  and  then 
failed  to  support  her,  leaving  her  to  be 
crushed  by  the  Central  Powers  after  a 
tragically  brief  campaign.  Roumania  de- 
clared war  on  Austria-Hungary  August 
27,  1916,  simultaneously  with  Italy's  dec- 
laration of  war  on  Germany.  Germany 
declared  war  on  Roumania  the  next  day, 
and,  103  days  later  (December  6),  Rou- 
mania's  capital,  Bucharest,  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  Central  Powers. 

Q.— What  did  the  Allies  offer 
Greece  in  exchange  for  her  as- 
sistance at  Gallipoli? 

A. — According  to  M.  Venizelos,  Sir  Ed- 
ward Grey  offered  a  long  strip  of  the 
coast  land  of  Asia  Minor,  from  Cape 
Phineka  to  the  Gulf  of  Adramyti.  In  ad- 
dition to  military  help,  Greece  was  asked 
to  give,  in  exchange  for  this  new  terri- 
tory, the  port  of  Kavala  to  Bulgaria. 
Greece  was  to  be  confirmed  in  her  occu- 
pation of  the  Turkish  islands,  Lemnos, 
Mitylene,  Thasos,  Samothrace  and  Chios. 
After  Bulgaria  went  to  war  Cyprus  was 
offered  to  Greece  as  a  further  inducement 
to  join  the  Allies.  On  the  continued  re- 
fusal of  ^  the  Greek  King  Constantine, 
Great  Britain  took  Cyprus. 

Q. — How  many  people  live  in  Rou- 
mania ? 

A. — The  census  of  1912  gave  the  popu- 
lation at  7,500,000.  The  area  of  the  king- 


The  Balkan  Powder  Magazine 


dom  is  53,689  square  miles.  The  peace 
strength  of  the  army  was  100,000 ;  the  war 
strength  is  put  down  at  over  500,000,  of 
which  some  225,000  would  take  the  field. 


15 

When  the  Roumanians  invaded  Bulgaria 
in  IQI3,  they  used  their  standing  army 
only.  The  artillery  was  armed  with 
Krupp  guns. 


Q.—What  religions  do  the  Central  Allies  profess? 


Roman 

Country                  Catholic  Protestant 

Germany    24,000,000  38,000,000 

Austria   21,000,000  500,000 

Hungary 10,000,000  3,000,000 

Bulgaria  30,000  17,000 

Turkey   60,000  800,000 

55,090,000  42,317,000 


Greek 
Church 

3,000,000 

5,000,000 

3,500,000 

80,000 

11,580,000 


Mohammedan 


650,000 
10,000,000 

10,650,000 


Q.—What  are  the  religions  of  the  Entente  Allies? 
Protestant 


Roman 

Country  Catholic 

Untd.  Kingdom      6,000,000 

France    39,000,000 

Russia  12,000,000 

Italy    35,000,000 

Belgium    7,500,000 

Serbia   

Portugal  6,000,000 

San   Marino    . .  10,000 

Montenegro 

British    Dom...      4,200,000 


Greek 
Church 


Mohammedan 


39,000,000 

600,000 

4,000,000 

28,000 


9,000,000 


100,000,000 


3,500,000 


300,000 


109,710,000 


52,628,000          103,800,000 


14,000,000 


15,000 


14,015,000 


The  above  list  omits  all  reference  to  the   Indians,   Algerians   and   other  native 
races  ruled  by  Britain,  France  and  Italy,  also  to  the  Japanese. 


Q. — Did  the  Kaiser  open  a  church 
in  the  Holy  Land  in  Francis- 
can costume? 

A. — He  made  a  visit  to  Palestine  in 
1898  and  on  that  occasion  was  present  at 
the  consecration  of  the  German  Protes- 
tant Church  of  the  Redeemer.  By  special 
arrangement  with  the  Sultan  he  had  ob- 
tained a  plot  of  ground  very  near  the 


Holy  Places,  which  he  presented  to  the 
German  Catholics.  He  himself  did  not 
consecrate  the  church,  nor  did  he  don 
Franciscan  garb  when  he  handed  over 
the  plot  of  land  to  the  Catholics.  His 
trip  to  Turkey  was  made  in  order  to  give 
an  impulse  to  German  influence  in  the 
East.  In  fact,  the  foundations  of  the 
German  Alliance  with  the  Turk  were  laid 
on  that  occasion. 


AUSTRIA  AND  THE  SLAVS 


Q. — What  were  the  terms  of  the 
Triple  Alliance  between  Ger- 
many, Austria  and  Italy? 

A. — The  clauses  have  never  been  pub- 
lished, but  it  is  universally  accepted  that 
the  Alliance  was  entirely  defensive  in  its 
purpose.  Prince  von  Biilow,  formerly 
Chancellor  of  Germany,  stated  that  the 
alliance  between  Italy,  Austro-Hungary 
and  Germany  was  an  instrument  con- 
servative in  its  tendencies  and  founded  to 
maintain  the  European  status  quo.  Italy 
held  that  as  it  was  a  defensive  agreement, 
Germany  violated  that  agreement  when 
she  became  the  aggressor  in  this  war.  A 
week  before  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  in 
July,  1914,  Austro-Hungary  and  Germany 
were  warned  by  Italy  that,  in  the  opinion 
of  Rome,  the  Austro-Hungarian  demands 
upon  Serbia  were  an  infraction  of  the 
Triple  Alliance,  and  Italy  from  the  be- 
ginning refused  to  join  in  the  war  pur- 
poses of  Austria  and  Germany. 

Q. — What  was  the  general  origin 
of  Serbo- Austrian  enmity? 

A. — Pan-Slavism  fundamentally ;  but 
specifically  there  had  grown  a  most  pow- 
erful feeling  of  nationalism  in  Serbia 
after  the  second  Balkan  War,  when  Ser- 
bia had  expanded  into  Macedonia.  The 
Pan-Slavic  movement  thus  acquired  a 
controlling  character  of  Pan-Serbism — 
that  is,  from  being  the  large  general  de- 
mand for  the  unity  of  Slavic  people,  it 
had  become  a  movement  for  extension  of 
Serbian  sovereignty  over  Serbish  people. 

This  created  a  Serbian  demand  for  the 
incorporation  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, 
with  a  "window  on  the  Adriatic." 

Q. — Was  there  ever  a  great  Serb- 
ian Empire? 

A. — There  was,  but  it  lasted  only  nine 
years.  It  was  formed  by  conquest  by  the 
great  Serbian  hero  Stephen  Dushan 
(1355),  and  almost  as  soon  as  he  died,  the 
Serbian  Empire  dissolved  again.  It  had 
spread  far  over  the  Balkans,  but  the  en- 
tire Balkan  peninsula  was  overrun  by  the 
Turks  before  the  end  of  the  century.  It 
remained  in  bondage  for  almost  four  hun- 
dred years  until  the  Turkish  Empire  be- 
gan to  break  up  at  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century. 

Serbia  then  obtained  autonomy  under 
the  noted  Milosh  Obrenovich  in  1830  and, 
after  changes  of  dynasty  between  the 


rival  houses  of  Obrenovich  and  Kara- 
georgevich,  her  status  was  settled  by  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin  in  1878.  Russia  at  that 
time  refused  to  aid  her,  and  Prince  Milan 
(later  King  Milan)  was  led  to  make 
terms  with  Austria,  who  procured  for  him 
recognition  as  an  independent  state. 

Q. — What  territory  do  the  Serbians 
claim? 

Prince  Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich,  a 
prominent  Pan-Serb,  said  in  1909  that 
their  claim  was  as  follows : 

Independent  Serbian  Lands. 

Kingdom    of    Serbia 2,923,000 

Principality  of    Montenegro...        280,000 

Serbian  Lands  under  Foreign  Domination. 

Bosnia-Herzegovina      (under 

Austria-Hungary)     1,713,000 

Dalmatia    (under  Austria) 667,000 

Istria  (under  Austria) 133,000 

Croatia-Slavonia    (under  Hun- 
gary)       2,334,000 

Banat     and     Batchka     (under 

Hungary)     872,000 

Old   Serbia   (under  Turkey) . .  1,376,000 


16 


10,298,000 

Q. — How    many    nationalities    are 
there  in  Austria-Hungary? 

A. — An  idea  may  be  gained  from  the 
fact  that  on  some  of  the  paper  money 
of  the  Empire  the  denomination  and  value 
are  printed  in  about  twelve  languages. 
There  are  some  eighteen  groups  that  lay 
claim  to  "nationality."  The  kingdom  of 
Bohemia  is  overwhelmingly  Slav  and  de- 
mands recognition  as  such.  Trieste  is  al- 
most a  pure  Italian  city;  lower  Tyrol  is 
Italian,  and  the  townsfolk  of  Dalmatia 
are  Italians.  The  districts  of  Carniola 
and  parts  of  Carinthia  are  Slav.  Hun- 
gary is  ruled  by  Magyars,  but  within  its 
limits  are  millions  of  Slavs.  Croatia, 
which  is  pure  Slav,  possesses  a  would-be 
autonomous  local  government.  The 
"Hungarian"  seaport  of  Fiume  is  a  pure 
Slav  city. 

Q. — How  did  Austria  and  Serbia 
come  to  blows? 

A. — On  June  28,  1914,  the  Arch-Duke 
Francis  Ferdinand,  heir  to  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  throne,  and  his  wife,  were  as- 
sassinated in  Sarajevo,  Bosnia.  The  as- 
sassin and  some  of  his  accomplices  were 


Austria  and  the  Slavs 


taken  and  the  Austro-Hungarian  govern- 
ment charged  that  the  Serbian  govern- 
ment was  directly  responsible  for  the  agi- 
tation that  had  led  to  the  deed  and  that 
at  least  some  Serbian  officials  had  guilty 
cognizance  of  the  conspiracy  itself. 

Q.— Was  this  true? 

A.— It  appears  to  have  been  proved  be- 
yond much  doubt  that  weapons  used  in 

the  assassination  had  come  from  the  gov- 
ernment arsenal  hi  the  Serbian  capital, 
Belgrade.  It  appears  to  be  reasonably 
certain,  also,  that  at  least  one  prominent 
Serbian  army  officer  was  directly  impli- 
cated. The  Serbian  government  tried  to 
apprehend  him,  but  failed.  Austria-Hun- 
gary claimed  that  the  failure  was  delib- 
erate. It  must  be  added,  however,  that 
the  internal  struggles  of  Czechs,  Bohem- 
ians and  Croats  against  Magyar  and  Aus- 
trian domination  had  been  so  violent  for 
years  that  Serbian  incitement  alone  can- 
not be  held  to  be  fully  responsible. 

Q. — What  was  the  direct  cause  for 
Austro-Serbian  enmity? 

A. — The  possession  by  Austria-Hungary 
of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  which  the 
Serbians  claimed  were  inhabited  by  Slavs. 

Q. — How  true  is  this? 

A. — It  is  not  a  question  easily  answered. 
The  Statesman's  Year  Book  (London, 
1917)  says :  "The  nationality  is  Croato- 
Serbian."  Croatians  are  Slavic,  but  they 
are  distinct  from  Serbians. 

The  1912  religious  census  casts  some 
light  on  the  constitution  of  the  popula- 
tion. It  shows  856,000  Serbian  Orthodox, 
627,000  Mohammedan,  452,000  Roman 
Catholic,  9,000  Greek  Catholic,  7,000  Evan- 
gelical, 13,000  Jews. 

Q. — Who  owned  Bosnia  and  Her- 
zegovina originally? 

A. — Turkey  owned  them,  but  there  were 
many  rebellions  against  Turkish  rule. 
Many  of  these  were,  however,  not  so 
much  on  national  or  racial  lines  as  on 
religious  lines,  being  based  largely  on 
the  desire  of  the  Christian  populations  to 
free  themselves  from  Moslem  rule. 

Q. — When    did    Austria-Hungary 
get  the  provinces? 

A. — After  Russia  defeated  Turkey  in 
the  war  of  1877-1878.  In  the  settlement 
known  as  the  Congress  of  Berlin  (1878), 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  were  placed 
under  loose  Austro-Hungarian  control. 


Q— Was  Ac  Congress  of  Berlin  a 

German  Congress? 


by  the  parties  to  k."  G«M«7— « 
particular  interest  in  it,  except  as  far* 
it  affected  the  balaiice^fpoW  iTE^ 
rope.  Bismarck,  however,  being  the  lead- 
ing statesman  of  the  tine,  was  looked  to 
by  all  sides  as  **— • — 


Q. — Who  were  the  principals  at 

the  Congress  of  Berlin? 
A.— Russia,  Turkey  and  Great  Britain, 
W1?,«  n?7  pl?y««  only  so*  part  as 
a  badly  defeated  nation  might  expect  to 
play.  The  struggle  was  between  Great 
Britain  and  Russia. 

Q. — What  was  it  about? 

A. — Russia  wished  to  create  a  power- 
ful Slav  State,  Bulgaria,  out  of  Turkish 
territory,  leaving  Turkey  only  a  small 
area  around  Constantinople  for  her  do- 
minion in  Europe.  Great  Britain,  fearing 
Russian  domination  of  Constantinople,  op- 
posed this  plan  stiffly.  Austria  also  feared 
Russia  as  a  neighbor,  even  indirectly,  and 
added  her  protest  The  result  was  a  de- 
feat for  Russia,  and  a  return  of  most  of 
the  Balkan  territory  to  Turkey.  As  a 
mere  incident,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, 
which  had  been  left  in  the  adjustment  as 
isolated  fragments,  were  placed  under  the 
protection  of  Austria  "for  administration 
and  military  occupation." 

Q. — Was   there   any   objection   to 
this  by  anybody? 

A. — None  at  all  by  any  European  power 
except  Russia  and  Turkey.  There  was  at 
that  time  no  feeling,  even  by  enlightened 
political  students,  against  the  transfer  of 
minor  territories  and  populations. 

Q. — Why  did  the  Powers  not  hand 
the  two  territories  to  Serbia? 

A. — The  independence  of  Serbia  from 
Turkey  had  only  just  been  established  by 
this  same  Treaty-  or  Congress  of  Berlin. 
The  country  was  in  a  decidedly  backward 
state,  and  it  appears  to  have  occurred  to 
nobody  that  the  disposition  of  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina  might  have  been  improved 
upon. 

Q.— Did  Austria-Hungary  rule  the 
provinces  badly? 

A.— On  the  contrary,  Austria's  rule  of 
these  provinces  is  one  bright  spot  which 


i8 


Questions  and  Answers 


even  her  enemies  can  afford  to  acknowl- 
edge. When  they  came  into  the  hands 
of  Austria  they  were  without  roads,  with- 
out schools,  without  any  of  the  industrial 
and  social  machinery  that  we  view  as  a 
part  of  civilization.  There  are  now  about 
1,000  miles  of  railroad  and  2,000  miles  of 
telegraph,  with  a  good  system  of  high- 
ways. In  1912  the  educational  statistics 
showed  universal  free  elementary  instruc- 
tion (compulsory  to  large  degree)  with 
1,870  lower-grade  schools  and  about  75 
higher  schools,  training  schools,  religious 
schools  and  other  similar  establishments. 
In  villages  practical  agriculture  is  taught. 

Q. — How  was  the  Bosnia-Herze- 
govinian  population  treated  po- 
litically ? 

A. — In  1910  a  Constitution  was  pro- 
claimed, and  the  right  of  universal  suf- 
frage was  granted  to  elect  a  Diet  that 
should  deal  with  provincial  finance,  taxes, 
railways,  public  works,  police,  and  civil 
and  criminal  law.  The  Diet's  legislation, 
however,  was  subject  to  Austrian  or  Hun- 
garian veto, 

Q. — Why  were  there  such  disor- 
ders? 

A. — Austria-Hungary  asserts  that  there 
were  no  genuine  objections  to  Austrian 
rule,  but  that  the  agitation  was  an  arti- 
ficially fostered  one,  and  that  the  Serbian 
government  was  directly  responsible  for 
it 

Q. — Was  this  true? 

A. — It  is  probably  true  in  part.  As 
stated  above,  the  investigation  of  the  as- 
sassination of  Archduke  Francis  Ferdi- 
nand in  Sarajevo,  capital  of  the  provinces, 
developed  serious  evidence  proving  be- 
yond reasonable  doubt  that  weapons  used 
by  the  assassin  had  come  from  the  gov- 
ernment arsenal  in  Belgrade,  the  capital 
of  Serbia,  and  that  at  least  some  Serbian 
army  officers  were  implicated.  It  must 
be  added,  however,  that  the  internal  strug- 
gles of  Bohemians,  Croatians  and  Slavs 
against  Austrian  and  Magyar  domination 
had  been  violent  for  many  years.  There- 
fore, it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the 
Bosnia-Herzegovinian  unrest  had  ample 
cause  without  Serbian  assistance. 

Q. — What  caused  the  first  big  op- 
position to  Austria? 

A. — In  1908  the  Imperial  Government 
of  Austria-Hungary  was  extended  over 
the  provinces  by  decree.  In  other  words, 


Austria-Hungary  took  into  her  actual  pos- 
session the  territories  that  had  been  placed 
into  her  care,  for  more  or  less  limited  con- 
trol, thirty  years  before.  Those  thirty 
years  had  seen  a  great  awakening  of  the 
political  sense  among  all  the  people  of 
Europe,  and  especially  among  the  Slavs, 
Croatians,  Bohemians,  and  other  Allied 
races.  Therefore,  while  in  actuality  the 
change  was  slight  (since  Austria  had 
been  sovereign  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses), the  people's  attitude  toward  it 
was  the  difference  between  a  Europe  of 
1878  and  a  Europe  of  1008.  It  was  the 
new  generation  of  Bosnians  and  Herze- 
govinians  who  responded  to  the  stirrings 
of  race  and  political  thought. 

Q. — Then  would  there  have  been 
the  assassination  of  the  fateful 
June  28,  1914,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances? 

A. — Perhaps  not.  But  the  feeling  that 
made  groundwork  for  that  violence  was 
something  far  too  great  to  be  merely  the 
effect  of  intrigue.  The  struggle  of  the 
Slav-Croat  races  is  one  of  the  big  facts 
of  history,  and  nothing  can  stop  it  till  it 
works  out  some  sort  of  fulfillment.  Ser- 
bian intrigue  (if  there  was  any)  did  not 
cause  it.  It  simply  took  advantage  of  it. 

Q. — Just  what  are  the  Slavs? 

A. — Originally  they  were,  presumably, 
Asiatic,  but  that  is  of  interest  only  to  the 
ethnologists.  The  big  contemporaneous 
fact  is  that  the  Slav  races  of  eastern  and 
southeastern  Europe,  different  though 
they  be  in  appearance,  thought,  manners 
and  even  speech,  constitute  the  greater 
part  of  the  population  of  that  region,  and 
are  inspired  by  a  great  ambition  for  ra- 
cial unity. 

Q. — Are  the  Slavs  mixed  in  with 
other  populations? 

A. — They  are.  It  is  this  fact  that  has 
made  a  great  deal  of  the  political  trouble 
in  the  past  and  that  will  make  much  in 
the  future,  unless  a  most  enlightened 
method  is  found  of  protecting  minorities. 
If  the  time-honored  majority-rule  is  ac- 
cepted, then  there  will  always  be  a  very 
large  population  which  happens  to  be  in 
the  electoral  minority,  that  will  be  utterly 
dominated  by  another  race  which  happens 
to  have  the  majority. 

Q. — Would  this  mean  Slav  domi- 
nation? 

A. — In  most  regions  it  would ;  but  in 
some  it  would  mean  the  domination  of 


Austria  and  the  Slavs 


the  Slavs  by  other  racial  masses — such 
as  in  many  electoral  districts  of  Hungary, 
where  Magyar  dominates  Slav  politically. 

Q. — Why    should    the    Slavs    not 
form  one  big  nation? 

A. — They  cannot  very  well.  They  are 
not  geographically  united.  Between  the 
various  Slav  masses  lie  masses  of  other 
races — the  Magyars  and  Hungarians  who, 
although  they,  too,  were  originally  Asi- 
atic, have  a  racial  spirit  quite  different 
from  that  of  the  Slav ;  the  Roumanians, 
who  claim  to  be  Latins,  by  descent  from 
ancient  Roman  populations ;  the  Bulgar- 
ians, who  once  held  to  the  Slav  racial 
tradition,  but  are  inclined  to  break  with 
it  and  assert  a  definite  race-culture  of 
their  own. 

Q. — Are  the  Slavs  divided  by  other 
than  geographical  reasons? 

A. — They  are  divided  into  groups  of 
age-long  existence,  such  as  the  Russian 
Slavs  of  the  north,  the  so-called  White 
Russians  of  the  center,  the  Little  Rus- 
sians, the  Ruthenians  of  southern  Rus- 
sia, the  Poles,  Slovaks  and  Czechs  of 
Central  Europe  and  the  southern  Slays 
(Serbs,  Croats,  Slovaks),  who  have  in 
recent  years  become  known  by  the  col- 
lective name  of  Jugo-Slavs. 

Q. — Why  are  the  Bohemians  anti- 
German? 

A. — They  are  anti-German  because  they 
desire  that  Bohemia  shall  be  a  Bohemian- 
controlled  kingdom  in  accordance  with 
its  ancient  traditions.  Their  claim  is  that 
under  the  existing  methods  of  political 
representation  the  German  and  Magyar 
votes  permit  a  non-Bohemian  minority  to 
rule  the  Bohemian  majority. 

They  do  not,  as  a  whole,  desire  sepa- 
ration from  Austria,  but  they  do  desire 
that  Bohemia  shall  be  a  great  Bohemian 
power  within  the  Empire,  and  that  the 
Empire  shall  not  rule  its  internal  af- 
fairs. 

Many  of  the  ardent  Bohemians  de- 
mand not  only  autonomy,  but  actual  sepa- 
ration and  complete  independence. 

Q. — What  is  a  Czech? 

A. — Czech  is  a  corrupt  form  of  Cech. 
Cechy  is  the  Bohemians'  name  for  their 
country.  Those  who  dwell  there  are, 
therefore,  Cechs.  The  Germans  call  the 
place  Bohmen.  4,250,000  Czechs  dwell 
there  and  2,470,000  Germans.  1,870,000 
Czechs  live  in  the  neighboring  Margra- 
vate  of  Moravia  and  720,000  Germans. 


Q.— Have  the  Czechs  actively  op- 
posed the  war? 

A.— The  Czech  members  of  the  Reich- 
stag refused  to  refrain  from  hostile 
demonstrations  against  the  war,  and  re- 
fused to  support  the  government  in  apply- 
ing the  reforms  it  contemplated  in  Ga- 
licia,  Bohemia,  and  in  the  southern  Slav 
regions.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the 
Keichstag  was  not  called  together  for  a 
long  time  during  the  war.  Reports  from 
Switzerland  were  that  serious  riots  oc- 
curred in  various  towns  in  Austria  occu- 
pied by  Czech  regiments,  and  it  was  neces- 
sary to  call  upon  German  and  Hungarian 
troops  to  master  the  rebels.  The  Czech 
National  Alliance  in  Great  Britain  opened 
an  office  in  Piccadilly  Circus  for  the  dis- 
tribution of  literature  explaining  the 
problems  of  the  Czechs,  and  their  aspira- 
tion for  independence  from  Austria.  In 
the  office  was  an  honor  roll  of  the  Czechs 
serving  in  the  British  army. 

Q. — Does    Austria    recognize    her 
various  nationalities  at  all? 

A.— The  attempt  to  centralize  and  Ger- 
manize the  Austrian  Empire  as  a  whole 
has  been  twice  made — once  under  the 
Emperor  Joseph  II,  toward  the  end  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  and  again  under 
Francis  Joseph,  after  the  suppression  of 
the  revolution  of  1848.  In  each  case  the 
attempt  failed,  and  it  was  finally  aban- 
doned as  impracticable. 

Hungary  had  always  impetuously  re- 
tained its  old  liberties  under  the  hegemony 
of  the  Magyars.  By  the  compromise  of 
1867  the  dual  form  of  the  monarchy  was 
definitely  fixed.  The  rights  of  the  various 
races  in  the  Empire  were  recognized 
under  this  adjustment.  In  Hungary,  for 
instance,  the  Croatians  were  recognized 
as  a  separate  entity,  under  their  own  Ban, 
or  governor,  their  separate  diet,  and  their 
distinct  machinery  of  local  and  provincial 
administration. 

In  Austria  proper  the  constitution  of 
1867  created  a  central  parliament  in  Vi- 
enna and  left  a  measure  of  autonomy  to 
the  old  provinces. 

Q.—Have     the     Austrian     Slavs 
gained  political  power  at  all? 

A.— The  tangible  result  is  the  present 
complexion  of  the  Reichstag  in  Vienna. 
So  long  as  the  franchise  was  based  upon 
property  qualifications,  the  votes  of  the 
landed  proprietors  kept  a  disunited  Ger- 
man majority  in  the  Reichstag,  but  the 
granting  of  universal  suffrage  a  few  years 
ago  resulted  in  the  return  of  a  Slavic  ma- 


20 


Questions  and  Answers 


jority   to   the   imperial   legislative   cham- 
ber. 

Q. — Are  the  various  Austrian  na- 
tionalities allowed  their  own 
language? 

A. — One  of  the  articles  of  the  constitu- 
tion guarantees  to  every  nationality  the 
free  use  of  its  language  "in  word  and 
writing."  This  was  put  in  to  assure  to 
each  race  the  use  of  its  language  in  its 
educational  system,  from  the  primary 
school  to  the  university,  in  the  diets,  in 
the  provincial  legislatures  and  in  the  ad- 
ministration, excluding  only  the  minis- 
tries at  Vienna,  and  in  the  courts  with 


the  sole  exception  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  imperial  capital. 

Even  to  this  last  reservation  in  favor 
of  a  central  authority  an  exception  is 
made.  In  Polish  litigation  the  entire 
process  of  litigation  and  judicature,  in- 
cluding the  highest  court,  may  be  carried 
on  in  the  Polish  language. 

Q. — What  language  is  used  in  the 
Austro-Hungarian  army? 

A. — One  language  only — German.  This 
arrangement  is  based  on  the  practical  con- 
sideration that  an  army  made  up  of  many 
races  would  be  handicapped  if  it  did  not 
have  a  common  language  of  command  and 
communication. 


THE  TRAGIC  WOUND 
(ALSACE  -  LORRAINE) 


Q. — What   nation    owned    Alsace- 
Lorraine  originally? 

A. — Originally  the  two  provinces  were 
distinct,  Lorraine  being  the  only  impor- 
tant one  historically.  It  is  only  in  very 
modern  times  that  they  have  become 
linked  under  one  name.  The  original  pos- 
sessors were  Germanic  tribes  of  the 
Rhine  and  these  lost  them  to  the  Romans, 
who,  for  many  centuries,  held  all  the 
Rhine  provinces  of  what  is  now  Germany 
and  all  of  Gaul  and  Belgica  (what  are 
now  France  and  Belgium).  Under  Ro- 
man rule  the  land  containing  Alsace-Lor- 
raine was  known  as  Germania  Superior. 

The  Romans  were  replaced  as  rulers 
by  the  Franks,  a  Germanic  race  which,  in 
the  course  of  its  long  centuries  of  sway, 
drew  into  itself  the  best  blood  of  the 
Gauls  and  also  of  the  original  Celtic  in- 
habitants of  what  is  now  France.  This 
Prankish  empire  reached  its  height  under 
Charlemagne,  whom  French  history 
claims  as  a  French  hero,  while  German 
history  claims  him  as  a  German.  He 
sprang  from  the  rulers  of  the  Rhenish 
territory  known  as  Austrasia. 

Q. — How    did    Lorraine    get    its 
name? 

A. — It  was  named  for  Lothar,  one  of 
the  Merovingian  line  of  kings,  whose 
greatest  was  Charlemagne.  The  ancient 
name  for  it  is  Lotharingia,  the  name  still 
retained  by  the  Germans,  who  to-day  call 
the  province  Lothringen. 

Q. — What     was     Alsace-Lorraine 
under  Charlemagne? 

A. — Under  the  Merovingian  ancestors 
of  the  great  king  it  was  a  duchy  attached 
to  the  Kingdom  of  Austrasia.  After 
Charlemagne's  time,  when  the  huge 
Prankish  empire  began  to  crumble,  it  be- 
came a  Countship,  and  remained  so  for 
many  years  till  it  was  restored  as  a  Duchy 
after  the  death  of  King  Henry  I  of  Ger- 
many. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  Austria  once 
owned  the  territory? 

A. — Yes.  About  the  time  of  the  Cru- 
sades (twelfth  century),  the  Duchy  of 
Lotharingia  was  a  powerful  part  of  the 


Roman  Empire  of  the  Germanic  and  Ital- 
ian States,  under  the  hereditary  rule  of 
the  Hohenstauffens,  then  the  most  pow- 
erful hereditary  house  in  Europe,  occu- 
pying the  position  afterward  reached  by 
the  Hapsburgs  and  later  by  the  Hohenzol- 
lerns.  In  1273  Austria  succeeded  to  the 
Imperial  throne  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  thus  succeeded  also  to  the  sovereignty 
of  Lorraine,  or  Lotharingia,  as  it  was 
called  then. 

Q. — Was  Lorrainian  territory  then 
the  same  as  now? 

A. — It  was  larger.  It  contained  a  part 
of  what  is  now  French  Lorraine.  At 
about  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  Amer- 
ica, it  thus  had  within  it  the  cities  of 
Verdun  and  Nancy.  France  (then  known 
as  the  Kingdom  of  Francia)  was  much 
smaller  than  it  is  now.  From  the  tenth 
to  the  fourteenth  centuries  the  river 
Meuse  (now  the  scene  of  such  hard  fight- 
ing) formed  a  considerable  part  of  the 
boundary  between  the  Roman  Empire  and 
France. 

This  huge  German-Austrian-Italian  em- 
pire was  so  shaped  that  while  Francia 
contained  all  of  the  Belgian  coast  -and 
part  of  the  present  Dutch  coast  in  the 
north,  it  narrowed  the  French  possessions 
in  a  southerly  direction  so  that  on  the 
Mediterranean  coast  the  North  Italian 
part  of  the  Roman  Empire  possessed  a 
good  part  of  what  now  is  the  French 
Riviera,  with  the  cities  of  Toulon  and 
Marseilles.  It  is  this  ancient  possession 
which  gave  foundation  to  the  early  claims 
of  modern  Italy  to  the  French  city  of 
Nice. 

Q. — When  did  French  territory  in- 
crease easterly? 

A. — From  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century  till  after  the  famous  Thirty 
Years'  War  in  Germany,  which  began  in 
1618  and  lasted  till  1648.  During  these 
years  the  German  territory  was  devas- 
tated from  the  Danube  to  the  Baltic ;  and 
Bohemian,  Austrian,  Swedish,  Spanish, 
Italian,  Dutch,  Danish  and  French  troops 
fought  their  battles  through  its  length  and 
breadth.  Lorraine  was  the  scene  of  fight- 
ing between  the  Swedes  and  the  French, 
and  the  German  Emperor  could  spare  no 
forces  to  hold  it.  The  treaty  of  West- 


21 


Questions  and  Answers 


phalia,  which  ended  the  Thirty  Years' 
War,  ceded  a  great  part  of  Lorraine  to 
France,  and  placed  Verdun  and  Toul  well 
within  the  French  boundary. 

This  treaty,  however,  simply  made  for- 
mal cession  of  lands  which  France  had 
•lowly  absorbed  before.  Thus,  the  bishop- 
rics of  Toul  and  Verdun  had  been  ab- 
sorbed as  early  as  1552. 

Q. — What  portion  remained  Ger- 
man? 

A. — The  part  containing  the  cities  of 
Metz,  Strassburg  and  Muhlhausen.  Za- 
bern,  which  became  so  notorious  through 
the  military  arrogance  of  German  officers 
a  few  years  ago,  was  in  this  remaining 
German  territory. 

Q. — Did  not  France  finally  obtain 
this  also? 

A. — Yes.  In  the  seventeenth  century, 
Louis  XIV  made  his  famous  stroke  for 
the  seizure  of  Holland,  and  in  the  en- 
suing conflict  between  France  and  the 
German  Emperor  a  great  part  of  Alsace 
and  Lorraine,  still  remaining  German,  was 
overrun  by  the  French. 

This  fighting  was  terminated  in  1678 
by  the  treaty  of  Nijnwegen,  which  gave 
Louis  a  part  of  the  territory.  He  de- 
sired more,  however,  and  in  1680  formed 
his  noted  "chambers  of  inquiry,"  and  cited 
German  princes  to  defend  their  claims  to 
Rhine  territory,  and  especially  to  Metz 
and  Brisach.  In  1680,  his  General,  Lou- 
vois,  seized  Strassburg.  This  is  the  war 
that  German  history  dubs  the  "Raub- 
krieg"  (robber- war).  There  were  a 
number  of  little  wars  which  ended  finally 
in  the  Peace  of  Ryswick  (1697),  con- 
firming the  French  title  to  Strassburg. 

Q. — Did  the  Alsace-Lorrainians  re- 
main French  from  that  time? 

A. — In  the  century  following  the  Peace 
of  Ryswick  the  people  were  in  the  gen- 
eral position  of  the  "small  nationalities," 
about  which  we  hear  so  much  to-day. 
Some  remained  German,  others  became 
French  in  their  sympathies.  The  ma- 
jority retained  German  customs  and  be- 
liefs, but  they  were  so  closely  in  touch 
with  French  ideas  that  when  the  great 
French  Revolution  began,  the  population, 
as  a  whole,  leaned  strongly  toward  the 
side  of  Republicanism.  When  the  French 
Republican  troops  moved  into  Alsace  on 
their  way  to  fight  Austria,  they  gained 
many  adherents. 

About  1789  the  French  thus  obtained, 
with  little  difficulty,  most  of  the  German 


parts  of  Alsace.  They  also  got  Mul- 
hausen  which,  at  that  time,  had  become  a 
sort  of  free  commune  loosely  allied  with 
the  Swiss  communes. 

Q. — Was  the  French  boundary 
greatly  changed  then? 

A. — The  wars  of  the  French  Republic, 
ended  by  the  Peace  of  Luneville,  added 
to  France  other  lands  on  the  left  bank 
of  the  Rhine  that  had  been  held  by  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  and  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  nineteenth  century  the  dream 
of  the  Valois  princes  was  realized  and 
the  Western  Francia,  the  duchy  of  the 
lords  of  Paris,  had  advanced  to  the  ut- 
most limits  of  the  Gaul  of  Caesar.  The 
French  domain  stretched  as  a  solid  and 
unbroken  mass  from  the  ocean  to  the 
Rhine.  After  Napoleon's  first  deposition, 
in  spite  of  the  claim  put  forward  by 
Prussia,  Alsace  was  left  to  France,  and, 
after  his  final  deposition,  the  eastern 
boundary  of  France  was  left  by  the  Pow- 
ers as  it  had  been  at  the  beginning  of 
1792. 

Q. — How  did  the  Germans  finally 
get  Alsace-Lorraine? 

A. — It  was  taken  by  them  as  part  of  the 
indemnity  that  they  exacted  from  France 
after  the  Franco-Prussian  War  of  1870. 
The  Germans  demanded  and  got  a  huge 
cash  indemnity,  and,  by  the  Treaty  of 
Frankfurt  (May  10,  1871),  the  provinces 
were  given  unreservedly  to  Germany.  On 
June  9,  1871,  the  German  Empire  passed 
the  law  stating  that  "the  provinces  of 
Alsace  and  Lorraine  shall  be  forever 
united  with  the  German  Empire." 

Q. — How  did  the  people  of  Alsace 
and  Lorraine  receive  the  Ger- 
mans in  1870? 

A. — The  majority  of  the  people  (and 
those  of  Alsace  particularly)  protested 
passionately.  They  had  become  thor- 
oughly French  in  spirit  and  feeling,  and 
the  ideals  of  the  French  Revolution  had 
remained  alive  in  them,  despite  the  suc- 
ceeding Napoleonic  imperialism.  The 
German  government  set  a  date  (Septem- 
ber 30,  1872)  for  the  people  to  determine 
where  their  allegiance  was  to  lie,  and  a 
very  large  number  preferred  to  emigrate 
to  France.  The  estimate  as  to  this  num- 
ber varies  from  45,000  to  125,000.  The 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica  gives  the  fig- 
ure as  45,000. 

Many  of  those  who  remained  refused 
for  a  long  time  to  take  part  in  the  gov- 
ernment 


The  Tragic  Wound  (Alsace-Lorraine') 


Q. — Has  Germany  treated  the 
provinces  as  conquered  terri- 
tory? 

A. — This  is  a  question  which  cannot  be 
answered  justly  in  a  brief  statement.  The 
nearest  approximation  we  can  make  to  an 
absolutely  impartial  statement  is  that  ap- 
parently the  purely  militaristic  part  of 
German  government  in  Alsace  and  Lor- 
raine is  what  has  caused  most  of  the  mis- 
chief. This  militaristic  aspect  was  largely 
Prussian,  and  was  fiercely  assailed  not 
only  by  the  Alsatians,  but  also  by  many 
factions  throughout  Germany.  As  against 
this,  it  seems  fair  to  say  that  the  actual 
political  laws  for  Alsace-Lorraine  were 
reasonably  liberal. 

Q. — What  is  the  government  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  ? 

A. — Speaking  very  broadly,  the  differ- 
ence between  the  status  of  Alsace-Lor- 
raine and  the  other  German  States  is 
parallel  to  the  difference  in  our  country 
between  Territories  and  States.  Alsace- 
Lorraine  is  held  by  Germany  as  a  "Reichs- 
land,"  which  means  literally  "National 
Province."  Thus,  while  the  States  _of 
Germany  are  sovereign  States,  governing 
themselves  through  their  own  rulerships, 
somewhat  like  American  States,  Alsace- 
Lorraine  is  governed  by  a  Statthalter 
(State-holder  or  practically  governor)  ap- 
pointed directly  by  the  Emperor  of 
Germany,  thus  again  paralleling  Federal 
government  of  Territories  through  gov- 
ernors appointed  by  the  President. 

Alsace-Lorraine,  however,  has  a  Con- 
stitution (granted  May  31,  1911),  which 
gives  the  Provinces  three  representatives 
in  the  Federal  Council  or  Bundesrath. 
The  people  of  the  province  also  elect  fif- 
teen members  to  the  Reichstag,  thus  dif- 
fering from  our  form  of  governing  ter- 
ritories, which  have  no  vote  in  Congress. 

Locally  the  Provinces  are  governed  by 
an  assembly  (Landes-Ausschuss),  con- 
sisting of  58  members,  of  whom  34  are 
appointed  by  an  assembly  of  two  houses 
or  chambers,  the  upper  consisting  of  mem- 
bers appointed  by  the  religious  communi- 
ties (2  Catholic,  2  Protestant,  I  Jew), 
representatives  of  universities,  large 
cities,  etc.,  and  a  group  appointed  by  the 
Emperor,  while  the  lower  house  has  60 
members  elected  by  the  people  for  5-year 
terms. 

Q. — Do  the  people  now  speak 
French  or  German? 

A. — About  85  per  cent  speak  German. 
The  rest  speak  French,  or  a  French  pa- 


tois. Most  of  the  common  people  habit- 
ually use  a  dialect  known  as  Alsatian, 
which  can  be  more  or  less  understood  by 
Germans,  but  is  distinctly  their  own. 
This  condition,  by  the  way,  prevails 
through  all  of  Germany  and  France,  the 
people  of  various  districts  using  dialects 
that  their  compatriots  in  other  districts 
can  understand  with  difficulty  or  not  at 
all.  All  these  people,  however,  with  the 
exception  of  the  small  percentage  of  il- 
literates, can  speak,  read  and  write  their 
national  language. 

Q. — Did  not  the  Germans  annex 
Alsace-Lorraine  because  of  the 
rich  mineral  lands? 

A. — Study  of  the  utterances  and  writ- 
ings of  German  and  French  statesmen  in 
the  period  1865-1875  fails  to  produce 
many  references  to  the  industrial  value 
of  the  provinces.  The  discussions  were 
mostly  devoted  to  the  strategical  value 
from  the  military  point  of  view  and  the 
title  to  possession  from  the  historical  and 
political  point  of  view.  It  must  be  re- 
membered that  the  very  loose  federation 
of  German  States  before  the  Franco- 
Prussian  War  had  not  yet  begun  to  at- 
tach preponderating  weight  to  industry 
and  commerce.  The  iron  and  coal  de- 
posits within  Germany  itself  had  been 
exploited  only  in  a  loose  way.  Germany 
had  not  begun  to  demand  vast  quantities 
of  iron.  Von  Moltke  and  the  other  mili- 
tary leaders  thought  of  Alsace-Lorraine 
little,  except  as  a  military  gateway. 

Of  course,  the  situation  now  is  vastly 
different.  The  iron  fields  of  Lorraine  are 
immensely  valuable  to  Germany,  and 
France  realizes  acutely  what  a  treasure  it 
lost  when  the  Provinces  were  ceded. 

Q. — Is  the  value  of  Lorraine's  iron 
great  enough  to  offset  loss  of 
lives  to  keep  it? 

A. — It  is  estimated  by  German  en- 
gineers that  out  of  the  2,800,000,000  tons 
of  iron  ore  deposit  in  Germany  there  are 
in  Lorraine  alone  2,100,000,000  tons.  In 
1913  Germany  extracted  28,600,000  metric 
tons  of  ore  from  all  her  mines.  21,000,000 
tons  of  this  total  were  obtained  from 
Lorraine.  The  mineral  wealth  of  Lor- 
raine has  been  for  many  years  the  prin- 
cipal source  from  which  German  metal- 
lurgy has  gathered  ^its  raw^  material  and 
German  militarism  its  munitions. 

Q. — What  was  the  Zabern  affair? 

A. — Zabern  is  a  town  in  Alsace  whose 
population  was  strongly  French  in  sym- 


Questions  and  Answers 


pathy,  and  it  was  garrisoned  by  Prussian 
troops,  whose  relations  with  the  townspeo- 
ple were  dangerously  strained  almost  con- 
tinually. It  happened  often  that  the  peo- 
ple, even  the  children,  shouted  words  of 
contempt  when  the  soldiers  passed. 

Some  months  before  the  great  war  a 
Prussian  officer,  Lieutenant  von  Forst- 
ner,  was  passing  in  review  cases  of  dis- 
cipline, when  a  soldier  was  brought  be- 
fore him  who  had  stabbed  an  Alsatian, 
and  who  had  been  sentenced  to  two 
months'  imprisonment.  The  lieutenant's 
judgment  was :  "Two  months  on  account 
of  an  Alsatian  blackguard?  I  would  have 
given  you  ten  marks  for  your  trouble." 

The  town,  hearing  the  story,  showed 
its  contempt  for  the  Prussians  by  smash- 
ing the  windows  of  von  Forstner's  house, 
and  hooting  German  officers  and  soldiers 
when  they  appeared  on  the  street.  Zabern 
was  put  under  martial  law,  and  it  is 
charged  that  the  Prussians  threatened  to 
fire  upon  the  citizens.  When  the  situa- 
tion was  at  its  worst,  a  cobbler  of  Zabern 
had  a  wordy  conflict  with  Forstner.  He 
spat  in  the  officer's  face  and  was  promptly 
attacked  with  a  sword. 

The  man  was  a  cripple,  and  this  fact, 
with  the  charge  that  he  had  been  sabred, 
aroused  wild  indignation.  The  Reichstag 
passed  a  strong  vote  of  censure  and  the 
Chancellor  felt  constrained  to  declare  that 
"no  progress  could  be  made  in  Alsace- 
Lorraine  unless  they  abandoned  the  fruit- 
less attempt  to  turn  the  South  Germans 
of  the  Reichsland  into  North  German 
Prussians." 

The  garrison  was  transferred.  The 
lieutenant  declared  that  he  had  used  only 
the  flat  of  his  sword,  but  a  very  bad  im- 
pression was  created  by  the  fact  that 
though  the  court-martial  sentenced  him 
to  detention  in  a  fortress  for  a  short  pe- 
riod, he  was  promoted  by  his  military 
superiors. 

Q. — How  would  the  people  of  Al- 
sace-Lorraine vote  in  a  plebis- 
cite? 

A. — The  Encyclopaedia  Britannica 
(1910,  eleventh  edition,  Cambridge,  Eng- 
land) leans  to  the  opinion  that  they  would 
wish  to  remain  German.  The  "War  Dic- 
tionary," published  by  the  Committee  on 
Public  Information,  Washington,  says 
that  Germany  "throughout  has  been  un- 
able to  reconcile  a  large  portion  of  the 
inhabitants  or  to  prevent  them  from 
showing  their  attachment  to  France  on 
every  occasion.  Germanizing  the  inhabi- 
tants has  been  only  partially  successful, 
despite  the  bringing  in  of  German  settlers, 
and  the  adoption  of  such  restrictive  meas- 


ures as  that  of  limiting  instruction  in  the 
French  language  in  the  public  schools  to 
one  hour  a  week." 

Professor  Nippold,  of  the  University  of 
Berlin,  said  that  "when  one  looks  back 
into  the  history  of  Europe  for  the  last 
forty  years,  it  seems  inconceivable  that 
any  one  can  be  unwilling  to  admit  that 
the  annexation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  was  a 
political  mistake." 

Sir  Harry  H.  Johnston,  the  well-known 
British  colonial  official,  wrote  in  the  Eng- 
lish Nineteenth  Century  Magazine :  "If 
a  plebiscite  were  called,  absolutely  uncon- 
trolled by  government  officials,  it  would 
probably  be  found  that  there  was  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  votes  in  Alsace- 
Lorraine  for  inclusion  within  the  Ger- 
man Empire." 

Q. — What  is  the  French  view  of  it? 

A. — Many  Frenchmen  have  declared 
that  a  plebiscite  would  result  in  a  ma- 
jority for  remaining  German.  The  view 
of  those  who  want  to  make  them  French 
again  is  that  the  people  are  French  at 
heart,  and  that  the  only  way  to  do  justice 
is  to  restore  the  Provinces  to  France. 

Q. — Do  Alsace  and  Lorraine  differ 
from  each  other  much? 

A. — They  are  quite  distinct  in  dialect. 
Elsassisch"  is  wholly  unlike  "Lothrin- 
gish."  They  differ  largely,  too,  in  com- 
mercial character,  Alsace  being  largely 
agricultural,  while  Lorraine  is  getting  to 
be  more  and  more  industrial. 

Alsace  itself  is  divided  into  upper  Al- 
sace and  lower  Alsace,  and  these  two  dis- 
tricts differ  somewhat  from  each  other. 

Q. — Apart  from  French  leanings, 
what  rule  do  the  Alsace-Lor- 
rainians  want? 

A. — The  people  want  to  free  themselves 
from  the  status  of  being  mere  inhabitants 
of  a  Reichsland.  They  want  to  become 
a  rightful  political  entity.  Apparently, 
the  chief  political  thought  of  the  Prov- 
inces (viewing  simply  the  relations  to  the 
German  Empire)  is  not  toward  erection 
of  Alsace-Lorraine  into  a  separate  Ger- 
man State. 

The  people  of  Lorraine  appear  to  favor 
inclusion  in  the  Bavarian  Rhine  province 
adjacent  to  them;  and  the  Alsatians  ap- 
pear to  lean  toward  incorporation  with 
Baden.  ^Prussian  desire  for  hegemony  in 
the  empire  has,  without  doubt,  had  much 
to  do  with  opposition  to  this  possible  so- 
lution of  a  vexed  question. 


The  Tragic  Wound  (Alsace-Lorraine) 


Q. — Did  Germany  pay  for  the  rail- 
ways in  Alsace-Lorraine? 

A. — Alsace  was  one  of  the  first  districts 
in  France  to  have  a  railway,  a  line  from 
Mulhausen  to  Thann  having  been  started 
in  1837.  The  Est  Company  operated  the 
lines  in  the  annexed  provinces,  and  the 
French  Government  was  obliged,  before 
the  ratification  of  the  peace  treaty,  to  de- 
termine the  concessions  of  the  Est  Com- 
pany so  far  as  Alsace  and  Lorraine  were 
concerned.  It  had,  that  is  to  say,  to  pur- 
chase the  lines  from  the  company  many 
years  before  the  concessions  would  nor- 
mally have  expired.  The  German  Gov- 
ernment then  became  vested  not  only 
with  the  lines  themselves,  but  with  all  the 
legal  rights  taken  over  by  the  French 
Government  on  determining  the  conces- 
sions. All  the  plant  was  included  in  the 
transaction,  but  the  rolling  stock  was  ex- 
pressly exempted,  and  the  Germans  hand- 
ed back  some  hundred  locomotives  and 
35,000  vehicles.  The  Est  then  received 
an  indemnity  from  the  German  authori- 
ties, which  was  actually  paid  over  to  the 
shareholders  by  the  French  Government, 


as  it  was  arranged  that  the  sum  in  ques- 
tion— 352,000,000  francs — should  be  de- 
ducted from  the  war  indemnity  of 
5,000,000,000  francs  ($95,000,000),  which 
France  was  obliged  to  hand  over  to  Prus- 
sia at  the  end  of  the  campaign. 

Q. — Which  side  declared  war  in  the 
Franco-Prussian  war? 

A. — France  declared  war.  The  Rep- 
resentatives in  the  Chamber  voted  in  fa- 
vor of  fighting  the  Prussians  by  246 
votes  to  10. 

Q. — How    long    did    the    Franco- 
Prussian  war  last? 

A. — France   declared   war  on   July   15, 

1870,  and  peace  was  signed  at  Frankfort 
on  May  10,  1871.    Peace  negotiations  were 
opened   by   the    French    on    January   24, 

1871,  and,  after  the  capitulation  of  Paris, 
on  January  28,  there  was  an  armistice  of 
twenty-one   days.     On    February   26   the 
German  terms,  later  incorporated  in  the 
Treaty  of   Frankfort,   were   accepted   by 
the  French. 


THE  PLACE  IN  THE  SUN 


Q. — What  has  been  England's  co- 
lonial expansion  in  the  last 
twenty-five  years? 

A. — The  only  colonies  of  note  won  by 
the  sword  by  Great  Britain  during  the 
last  twenty-five  years  are  the  Transvaal 
(110,400  square  miles)  and  the  Orange 
Free  State  (50,400  square  miles).  All  the 
rest  have  been  won  by  a  policy  of  peace- 
ful penetration,  or  by  agreement  with  the 
other  Great  Powers.  The  Malay  States, 
for  instance,  only  came  directly  under 
British  control  in  1896,  but  ever  since 
1874  British  residents  were  "advising"  the 
native  rulers.  They  steadily  increased  in- 
fluence and  area  until  the  British  Empire 
was  enlarged  in  that  part  of  the  world 
by  some  30,000  square  miles.  The  same 
process  was  followed  in  Beluchistan  after 
the  Afghan  wars  had  enabled  the  British 
to  get  a  footing  there.  In  1887  British 
Beluchistan  came  into  formal  existence. 
Further  provinces  have  been  added  since 
and  this  colony  now  comprises  132,000 
square  miles. 

Q. — Does  Great  Britain  own  Chi- 
nese territory? 

A. — Sikkim  in  the  Himalayas,  2,818 
square  miles,  was  acquired  by  treaty  with 
China  in  1890.  Wei-Hai-Wei  was  leased 
by  Great  Britain  from  China  as  an  answer 
to  the  leasing  of  Port  Arthur  by  Russia. 
It  is  generally  understood  that  this  lease 
will  not  be  terminated  so  long  as  Japan 
remains  at  Port  Arthur,  where  by  force 
majeure,  she  took  over  the  lease  from  the 
Russians  in  1895. 

Q. — What  does  Great  Britain  own 
in  Africa? 

A. — Great  Britain,  by  agreement  with 
the  other  Powers,  confirmed  her  occupa- 
tion of  large  areas  in  East  Africa,  and  in 
1908  the  entire  protectorate  became  a 
Crown  Colony,  some  200,000  square  miles 
in  area.  It  includes  those  portions  of  the 
hinterland  of  Zanzibar  for  which  Lord 
Salisbury  exchanged  Heligoland.  North 
of  the  East  Africa  Protectorate  is  the 
Uganda  Protectorate,  also  British,  offi- 
cially acquired  in  1894,  some  118,000 
square  miles  in  extent.  The  Somaliland 
Protectorate,  68,000  square  miles,  the 
Nyassaland  Protectorate,  40,000  square 
miles,  and  Bechuanaland  Protectorate, 
275,000  square  miles,  Rhodesia,  435,000 


square  miles  were  all  acquired  peace- 
fully within  the  last  twenty-five  years. 
Other  odd  possessions  in  Africa  were  ob- 
tained by  arrangement  with  the  other 
Powers,  when  from  time  to  time  they  di- 
vided up  Africa. 

Q.— How  did  Great  Britain  get  the 
Sudan? 

A. — The  Sudan  was  reconquered  by  the 
British — nominally  on  behalf  of  Turkey 
— in  1896.  It  comprised  950,000  square 
miles. 

Q. — How  did  she  get  Egypt? 

A. — Egypt,  long  virtually  under  British 
control,  though  nominally  under  the  Sul- 
tan of  Turkey,  became  actually  British 
after  the  agreement  with  France,  which 
gave  the  latter  a  free  hand  in  Tunis,  and 
made  her  the  dominant  power  in  Morocco. 
Since  the  war  began  the  suzerainty  of 
Turkey  has  been  abolished.  The  area  of 
Egypt  is  about  400,000  square  miles. 

Q. — How  did  Great  Britain  get  so 
many  coaling  stations? 

A. — The  majority  of  the  important 
coaling  stations  and  islands  owned  by 
Great  Britain  all  over  the  world  were  ac- 
quired by  conquest,  either  from  the  French 
or  from  their  Allies  during  the  Napol- 
eonic wars.  Others  were  taken  still  ear- 
lier from  the  Spaniards. 

Q. — How     were     the     Dominions 
won? 

A. — India  was  won  by  the  sword  and 
by  peaceful  penetration,  Australia  and 
New  Zealand  by  settlement,  Canada  by 
conquest,  cession  and  settlement,  New- 
foundland by  settlement  and  agreement 
with  France. 

Q. — How  did  the  Germans  acquire 
New  Guinea? 

A. — By  annexation,  much  as  the  British 
acquired  what  is  known  as  Papua.  The 
island  was  probably  discovered  by  two 
Portuguese  navigators,  in  1511.  The 
Spaniards,  however,  during  the  next  two 
decades  appear  to  have  visited  it  often. 

In  1545,  De  Retez^  a  Spanish  explorer, 
cruising  round  the  island,  continued  his 
voyage  to  the  Australian  Continent,  think- 
ing it  was  still  part  of  the  same  island, 


26 


The  Place  in  the  Sun 


and,  landing  in  North  Queensland,  gave 
it  the  name  of  New  Guinea.  He  formally 
took  possession  of  what  is  now  Dutch 
New  Guinea  in  the  name  of  the  King  of 
Spain.  Dutch  voyagers,  including  Tas- 
man,  in  1643,  were  the  next  on  the  scene, 
and  finally  the  British  arrived,  Dampier 
being  the  first  Englishman  to  land  there, 
in  1700.  Captain  Cook  visited  the  island 
in  1770. 

The  Dutch,  who  had  established  trad- 
ing stations  on  the  coast,  formally  an- 
nexed the  western  half  of  the  island  in 


Q. — Did  not  Australia  take  a  hand  ? 

A. — The  Queensland  Government,  real- 
izing the  desirability  of  possessing  the 
place  for  strategical  reasons,  sent  Mr. 
Chester,  Police  Magistrate  at  Thursday 
Island,  to  New  Guinea  in  1883,  and  he 
formally  annexed  all  that  the  Dutch  had 
not  taken. 

Q. — Did  England  ratify  this? 

A. — The  Home  Government  refused  to 
ratify,  and  as  a  result  one-fourth  of  the 
island  was  lost  to  the  British  Crown.  The 
two  great  missionaries  who  were  at  that 
time  the  most  notable  people  in  the  island, 
Dr.  Lawes  and  Dr.  Chalmers,  both  ap- 
proved the  action  of  Lord  Derby.  The 
latter  wrote,  "Derby  was  right  in  leaving 
room  for  Germany.  The  Colonies  are 
angry  from  ignorance." 

In  the  following  year,  however,  the 
Government  took  action  and  established 
a  protectorate  over  what  is  now  called 
Papua.  The  flag  was  hoisted  by  Lieu- 
tenant (now  Admiral)  Gaunt  on  Novem- 
ber 6,  1884. 

The  German  flag  was  raised  in  Kaiser 
Wilhelm's-Hafen  ten  days  later.  The 
boundary  between  British  and  German 
New  Guinea  was  agreed  upon  in  the  suc- 
ceeding year. 

Q. — Was  the  German  Colony  only 
on  the  island  of  New  Guinea? 

A. — No.  It  included  as  well  several 
large  islands,  Neu-Pommern,  on  which  is 
situated  the  capital,  Herbertshohe,  Neu- 
Mecklenburg,  Neu-Hannover,  the  Admi- 
ralty Islands,  and  the  Solomon  Islands 
(2),  and  some  200  little  islands  scat- 
tered about  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
big  ones.  The  area  of  Kaiser  Wilhelm|s 
Land,  which  is  on  New  Guinea  proper,  is 
about  70,000  square  miles.  It  is  interest- 
ing to  recall,  by  the  way,  that  Neu-Pom- 
mern was  formerly  called  New  Britain, 
und  Neu-Mecklenburg  used  to  be  known 
as  New  Ireland. 


Q. — Were  the  other  German  pos- 
sessions in  the  Pacific  acquired 
by  annexation? 

A. — No.  Most  of  them  were  acquired 
by  purchase  or  by  treaty.  Germany 
bought  the  Caroline,  Petlew,  and  Mari- 
anne Islands,  with  the  exception  of  the 
largest,  Guam,  which  was  ceded  to  the 
United  States  by  Spain  after  the  Spanish- 
American  war. 

Q. — How  does  it  happen  that  Great 
Britain  has  possession  of  Cy- 
prus? 

A.— At  the  end  of  the  Russo-Turkish 
war  Great  Britain  engaged  to  join  the 
Sultan  of  Turkey  in  defending  his  Asiatic 
possessions  against  Russia,  and  the  Sul- 
tan, in  order  to  enable  England  to  make 
necessary  provision  for  fulfilling  this  en- 
gagement, consented  to  assign  the  island 
of  Cyprus,  to  be  occupied  and  adminis- 
tered by  England.  The  British  occupa- 
tion began  in  June,  1878.  The  treaty  be- 
tween the  Queen  and  the  Sultan  set  forth 
that  "if  Batoum,  Ardahan,  Kars  or  any 
of  them  shall  be  returned  by  Russia,  and 
if  any  attempt  shall  be  made  at  any  future 
time  by  Russia  to  take  possession  of  any 
further  territories  of  the  Sultan  in  Asia, 
as  fixed  by  the  definitive  Treaty  of  Peace 
(signed  between  Russia  and  Turkey  on 
February  8,  1879),  England  engages  to 
join  the  Sultan  in  defending  them  by  force 
of  arms.  .  .  .  And,  in  order  to  enable 
England  to  make  necessary  provision  for 
executing  her  engagement,  the  Sultan  fur- 
ther consents  to  assign  the  Island  of 
Cyprus,  to  be  occupied  and  administered 
by  England."  This  is  one  of  the  few 
treaties  which  states  definitely  that  one 
nation  will  fight  another  under  certain 
circumstances.  An  inner  fact  is  that  Eng- 
land considers  the  possession  of  Cyprus 
necessary  for  the  security  of  the  Suez 
Canal.  Every  year  Great  Britain  paid  an 
annual  tribute  of  $450,000  to  Turkey  for 
Cyprus,  but  this  money  never  went  to 
Turkey  at  all.  It  was  used  to  pay  the 
interest  on  money  advanced  to  Turkey. 
During  the  great  war  Great  Britain  finally 
annexed  the  island.  Apart  from  the 
fact  that  she  no  longer  pays  tribute,  mat- 
ters will  be  the  same  as  they  have  been 
for  the  last  38  years. 

Q. — What  did  we  pay  for  the  Dan- 
ish West  Indies? 

A. — The  United  States  obtained  these 
islands  by  the  payment  of  $25,000,000. 
After  considerable  discussion,  the  group 
was  renamed  the  Virgin  Islands. 


28 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Had  Denmark  always  owned 
the  Virgin  Islands? 

A. — They  have  had  many  owners  since 
Columbus  first  discovered  them.  The 
island  of  St.  Croix  has  been  in  succes- 
sion Spanish,  English,  Dutch,  Spanish, 
French,  Maltese,  French  and  Danish.  In 
most  cases  it  was  as  the  spoil  of  con- 
quest, but  in  1753  King  Christian  VI  of 
Denmark  purchased  it  for  $150,000. 
During  the  Napoleonic  Wars,  Great 
Britain  possessed  herself  of  the  islands, 
but  they  were  returned  to  Denmark  after 
Waterloo.  Few  islands  have  had  a  more 
romantic  history.  Here  Drake  and  Fro- 
bisher,  Grenville  and  De  Grasse  fought  in 
the  early  days.  Later  the  buccaneers  and 
pirates  of  the  Spanish  Main  made  them 
their  headquarters.  Blackbeard's  Tower, 
which  still  overlooks  the  great  harbor  of 
St.  Thomas,  is  a  memento  of  one  of  the 
fiercest  of  these  old  pirates,  one  Edward 
Teach,  better  known  as  Blackbeard. 

Q. — Had  the  United  States  tried  to 
purchase  the  islands  before? 

A. — In  1867,  Denmark,  finding  the 
islands  a  heavy  drain  on  her  exchequer, 
agreed  to  the  proposal  of  the  United 
States,  which  offered  to  purchase  the 
three  islands  for  $7,500,000.  The  Ameri- 
can Senate  refused  to  ratify  the  treaty. 
In  1902  negotiations  were  opened  again, 
and  another  treaty  was  signed,  under 
which  the  United  States  was  to  buy  the 
islands  for  $5,000,000.  On  this  occasion, 
however,  the  Danish  Parliament  refused 
to  ratify.  The  value  of  the  islands  at 
present  is  purely  strategic,  although  at 
one  time  St.  Thomas,  the  capital,  was 
the  distributing  center  for  the  Antilles 
and  Central  America. 

Q. — Have    the    Virgin    Islands    a 
large  population? 

A. — No.  Altogether  not  more  than 
30,000.  The  inhabitants  are  practically  all 
negroes,  and  are  engaged  on  the  sugar 
plantations.  The  islands  had  not  pros- 
pered recently  under  Danish  rule,  and 
the  population  has  decreased  owing  to 
poor  sanitary  conditions.  The  infant 
mortality  is  more  than  50  per  cent. 

Q. — What  government  has  British 
South  Africa? 

A. — A  Colonial  government  similar  to 
the  Canadian.  It  is  known  as  the  Union 
of  South  Africa,  and  the  premier  is  Gen- 
eral Botha,  a  Boer. 


Q. — Was  there  a  convention  that 
in  war  all  Africa  should  be  re- 
garded neutral  territory  in- 
violable from  attack? 

A.— Not  all  Africa.  At  the  Berlin 
Convention  of  1885,  the  Powers  decided 
that  free  trade  in  time  of  peace  and  neu- 
trality in  time  of  war  should  prevail 
throughout  the  region  watered  by  the 
Congo  and  its  tributaries,  including  Lake 
Tanganyika,  an  area  of  a  million  and  a 
half  square  miles. 

Q. — How  does  it  happen,  then,  that 
there  has  been  fighting? 

A. — On  August  7,  1911,  the  Belgian 
Government  asked  France  and  Great  Brit- 
ain to  declare  their  Congo  colonies  neu- 
tral in  accordance  with  the  convention. 
France  was,  so  it  is  said,  willing,  but 
Great  Britain  refused  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  impracticable,  and  that  hostilities 
already  had  begun  in  Africa. 

Q. — Was  the  United  States  a  sig- 
natory of  this  convention? 

A.— The  American  Government  took 
part  in  the  convention,  and  the  United 
States  was  the  first  Power  to  recognize 
the  flag  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  Ger- 
many being  the  second.  The  German 
Government  in  1914  formally  asked  the 
United  States  as  one  of  the  signatories  of 
the  convention  to  arrange  an  agreement 
among  the  belligerents  to  exclude  the 
Congo  Basin  from  the  war. 

Q. — What  did  the  United  States 
do? 

A.— -It  decided  not  to  undertake  the  ne- 
gotiations on  the  ground  that  the  Senate 
never  had  ratified  the  Berlin  Convention. 

Q.— Ought  the  United  States  not  to 
have  done  something? 

A. — Not  necessarily.  Legally  she  was 
not  a  party  to  the  convention.  The 
United  States  took  a  leading  part  in  the 
Berlin  1885  Convention,  but  the  Senate, 
which  has  control,  with  the  President, 
over  foreign  affairs,  refused  to  ratify  it. 

Q. — Is  Persia  an  independent 
state? 

A. — Nominally.  Until  1006  the  Shah 
was  the  absolute  ruler,  and  was  gener- 
ally regarded  as  the  vice-regent  of  the 
Prophet.  In  that  year,  however,  a  sort 
of  a  Parliament  was  formed,  and  in  the 


The  Place  in  the  Sun 


29 


year  following,  a  regular  constitution  was 
proclaimed.  In  1909  the  nationalists  rose 
in  revolt.  The  Shah  fled,  and  abdicated. 
The  finances  were  in  chaos,  and  Russia 
and  England  intervened  in  the  local  gov- 
ernment. Before  this,  the  differences  be- 
tween the  two  great  Powers  had  kept 
Persia  independent.  With  their  rap- 
prochement, the  need  for  a  buffer  state 
disappeared.  The  Anglo-Russian  Con- 
vention of  1907  virtually  divided  the 
country  between  Britain  and  Russia.  The 
Shah  still  is  nominal  ruler,  and  the  peo- 
ple are  supposed  to  govern  themselves 
through  their  parliament.  The  Russian 
sphere  of  influence,  as  laid  out  in  1907, 
was  the  northern  half  of  Persia,  and  the 
British  the  southern  half. 

Q. — What  are  the  British  interests 
in  Persia? 

A. — The  greatest  direct  and  specific  in- 
terest is  oil. 

During  the  war  the  British  Govern- 
ment completed  arrangements  for  a  huge 
concession,  which  secured  to  the  Admi- 
ralty immense  oil  fields  in  Persia.  Naval 
experts  had  insisted  upon  the  necessity  of 
controlling  a  large  and  steady  supply  of 
oil. 

Q. — After  the  downfall  of  the 
Czar,  did  Russia  retain  domi- 
nation in  Persia? 

A. — Trotzky,  the  Russian  foreign  min- 
ister under  the  Bolsheviki  government, 
gave  the  Persian  minister  in  Petrograd  a 
statement  in  January,  1918,  declaring: 

"The  Anglo-Russian  agreement  of  1907 
was  directed  against  the  liberty  and  in- 
dependence of  the  Persian  people,  and  is 
null  and  void  for  all  time.  Moreover,  the 
Government  denounces  all  agreements 
preceding  and  following  the  said  agree- 
ment which  may  restrict  the  rights  of  the 
Persian  people  to  a  free  and  independent 
existence." 

Q. — What  is  the  area  of  Egypt? 

A. — About  400,000  square  miles^  but  of 
this  only  about  12,000  square  miles  are 
cultivated  and  settled. 

Q. — How  many  people  live  there? 

A. — According  to  the  census  of  1907 
there  were  11,200,000.  Among  these 
were  150,000  foreigners,  viz.,  63,000 
Greeks,  35,ooo  Italians,  21,000  British  and 
15,000  French.  Of  the  total  population 
10,400,000  are  Moslems,  706,500  Copts 
(Christians),  and  39,000  Jews. 


Q. — What  race  are  the  Maltese — 
European  or  Asiatic? 

A. — They  are  a  Mediterranean  race, 
that  is,  they  are  similar  in  many  respects 
to  the  Italians,  Sicilians,  Greeks  and 
Levantine  peoples.  Malta  was  originally 
colonized  by  the  Phoenicians,  who  were 
the  great  navigators  of  their  time,  and 
cruised  through  the  entire  length  of  the 
Mediterranean  and  along  the  seaboard  of 
the  eastern  Atlantic  to  Great  Britain. 
They  planted  colonies  as  they  went.  Car- 
thaginians, Romans,  Arabs,  Normans, 
Turks,  French,  Italians  and  British  took 
possession  of  the  island  at  different  times, 
as  enemies  or  as  deliverers.  The  people 
do  not  speak  Italian,  but  Phoenician- 
Maltese,  which  is  altogether  different.  On 
the  whole  they  are  a  handsome,  well- 
formed  race,  thrifty  and  industrious, 
strong  and  very  prolific.  They  are  very 
strict  Roman  Catholics.  They  have  alto- 
gether escaped  the  negroid  contamination 
noticeable  in  some  of  the  European  lands 
opposite  Africa. 

Q. — Are  there  many  Maltese? 

A. — Malta  had  219,311  at  the  last  cen- 
sus. The  density  of  the  population  is 
1,858  to  the  square  mile.  In  Belgium  the 
density  is  665,  and  in  the  United  King- 
dom 378  a  square  mile.  There  has  been 
considerable  difficulty  experienced  by  the 
Colonial  Office  in  connection  with  the 
island,  owing  to  the  rapid  increase  of  the 
population,  and  the  increasing  lack  of 
employment,  due  to  the  fact  that,  forborne 
years  before  the  war,  Britain  maintained  a 
very  small  squadron  in  the  Mediteranean, 
and  Malta  was  therefore  much  less  used 
than  formerly  for  naval  purposes. 

Q. — Do  the  natives  of  South  Africa 
pay  more  in  direct  taxation  for 
land  than  do  the  Europeans? 

A. — Apparently  that  is  so.  The  na- 
tives contributed  in  1916  $4,250,000  in 
direct  taxes;  the  Europeans  $1,450,000. 
The  Europeans  own  no  millions  "mor- 
gens"  of  land,  the  natives  only  16  mil- 
lions. The  new  taxes  have  been  severely 
criticized  in  the  Union  Parliament. 

Q. — Has  there  been  fighting  in 
Tripoli? 

A. — There  was  in  1915,  and  of  so  seri- 
ous a  nature  that  the  Italians  appear  to 
have  evacuated  the  country  they  had  con- 
quered at  so  great  a  cost,  and  retired 
to  the  seaboard  towns  where  they  were 
safe  from  Arab  attack.  Reports  in  Au- 
gust, 1917,  were  that  there  had  been  heavy 


Questions  and  Answers 


fighting  in  Tripoli,  and  that  the  Italians 
completely  defeated  their  adversaries, 
who  were  led  by  Turks  and  Germans. 

Q. — What  was  the  Jameson  Raid? 

A. — The  Jameson  raid  was  led  by  Dr. 
(afterward  Sir  Starr)  Jameson,  in  1895-6. 
He  was  Administrator  of  Rhodesia  at 
the  time,  and  gathered  a  body  of  troops 
at  Mafeking  on  the  Transvaal  border, 
his  presence  there  being  connected  with 
a  conspiracy  which  was  being  hatched 
at  Johannesburg  to  overthrow  President 
Kruger.  The  conspirators,  however,  fell 
out  among  themselves  over  the  question 
whether  the  State  they  proposed  to  set 
up  was  to  be  an  independent  one,  or  to 
be  under  the  British  flag. 

Owing  to  this,  and  to  the  suspicions  of 
the  Dutch,  the  revolution  did  not  culmi- 
nate. Dr.  Jameson,  hoping  to  save  the 
situation,  decided  to  ride  in  to  Johannes- 
burg, with  chosen  companions,  trusting 
that  the  conspirators,  heartened  by  their 
arrival,  would  strike  the  blow  they  had 
contemplated.  The  Boers,  however,  re- 
ceived word  of  his  coming,  telegraphed 
to  London,  and  the  British  Government 
immediately  disowned  Dr.  Jameson. 

A  commando  of  some  thousand  men 
was  hastily  raised,  and  under  the  leader- 
ship of  General  Cronje,  surprised  and 
utterly  defeated  the  raiders  at  Doornkop, 
some  twelve  miles  from  Johannesburg,  on 
January  2,  1896.  A  few  raiders  were 
killed  and  the  rest  were  taken  prisoner. 

Q. — Were  the  Jameson  raiders  pun- 
ished? 

A. — President  Kruger  liberated  the 
men,  and  handed  the  leaders  over  to 
Great  Britain  for  punishment.  He,  how- 
ever, arrested  the  revolutionary  commit- 
tee, and  Mr.  Phillips  (later  Sir  Lionel 
Phillips),  Mr.  Farrar  (later  Sir  George 
Farrar),  Colonel  Frank  Rhodes  (brother 
of  Cecil  Rhodes),  and  John  Hays  Ham- 
mond (the  American  mining  engineer), 
were  condemned  to  death.  After  some 
months'  imprisonment,  however,  they 
were  let  off  with  a  fine  of  £25,000  ($125,- 
ooo)  each.  All  the  others  of  the  com- 
mittee were  condemned  to  two  years' 
imprisonment,  and  a  fine  of  £2,000  each, 
but  were  liberated  after  one  month's  im- 
prisonment, the  fines  all  being  paid. 

Dr.  Jameson  was  tried  in  London  and 
was  sent  to  prison  for  some  months. 

Q. — How  many  soldiers  had  the 
British  in  the  South  African 
war? 

A. — 230,000  in  all ;  5,774  were  killed, 
22,829  were  wounded.  The  Boer  losses 


in  killed  were  estimated  at  4,000.  At  the 
disastrous  battle  of  the  Tugela,  British 
losses  were  1,100,  while  at  Loos,  Belgium, 
they  were  60,000,  but  Loos  was  a  victory, 
and  the  Tugela  a  defeat. 

Q. — Who  and  what  is  the  Rajah  of 
Sarawak  ? 

A. — The  first  Rajah  of  Sarawak  was 
Sir  Charles  Brooke,  who  obtained  the 
territory  from  the  Sultan  of  Brunei  in 
1842  in  recompense  for  aiding  to  save  his 
throne.  His  nephew  succeeded  in  1868, 
and  the  present  ruler,  known  formerly  as 
Rajah  Mundi,  is  his  son.  He  married 
a  daughter  of  Viscount  Esher  of  Eng- 
land. 

Q. — How  was  Africa  parcelled  out 
among  the  European  nations 
before  the  war? 

A. — The  great  partition  was  completed 
in  1885  at  Berlin,  when  the  Congo  Free 
State  came  into  existence.  Since  then 
France  got  Morocco,  Italy  Tripoli ;  Great 
Britain  has  now  completely  acquired 
Egypt,  and  all  the  German  possessions  in 
West  Africa  have  been  taken  by  the 
Allies.  In  1913  Africa  was  cut  up  as 
follows : — 

Square  Miles. 

French    4,100,000 

British    2,100,000 

Egypt  and  Sudan  1,600,000 


Total  British    3,700,000 

German    000,000 

Belgian  900,000 

Portuguese    800,000 

Italian    600,000 

Spanish 80,000 

Abyssinia   350,000 

Liberia 40,000 

Q. — When  did  the  Mediterranean 
nations  obtain  Northern  Af- 
rica? 

A. — When  Turkish  power  over  the 
Red  Sea  and  Mediterranean  Africa 
weakened.  In  1830  France  took  Algeria. 
Then  France  (with  England)  established 
a  dual  control  over  Egypt.  In  1881 
France  annexed  Tunis.  In  1882  England 
bombarded  Alexandria  to  put  down  the 
revolt  of  Arabi  Pasha,  and  then  took  con- 
trol. In  1884  Italy  sent  an  expedition  to 
occupy  Dogali  and  Massawa,  adjoining 
Abyssinia.  The  force  was  overwhelmed 
by  Menelik  of  Abyssinia.  A  second  expe- 
dition was  sent  with  more  success,  and 
after  five  years  of  desultory  fighting,  a 
peace  was  declared  in  1889.  The  contin- 


The  Place  in  the  Sun 


ual  change  of  cabinets  kept  the  entire  East 
African  situation  in  a  turmoil  for  ten 
years  more  before  the  Italian  hold  in 
the  Red  Sea  country,  known  as  Eritrea, 
was  secure. 

Q. — What    possessions    had    Ger- 
many in  the  Pacific? 

A. — She  had  German  New  Guinea, 
which  consists  of  Kaiser  Wilhelm's  Land, 
70,000  square  miles,  situated  on  the 
island  of  New  Guinea,  immediately 
north  of  Papua ;  the  Bismarck  Archi- 
pelago, including  Neu-Pommern  (the 
headquarters  of  the  Governor),  the  Caro- 
line Islands,  the  Pelew  Islands,  and  the 
Marianne  Islands,  the  Solomon  Islands, 
the  Marshall  Islands.  Some  were  ac- 
quired in  1885,  others  were  purchased 
'from  Spain  in  1899.  The  native  popula- 
tion is  some  360,000;  there  were  1,240 
whites,  of  whom  790  were  German. 

Q. — How   did   Germany   get  pos- 
session in  the  Samoan  group? 

A. — She  had  two  Samoan  islands 
(Savaii  and  Upolo)  ceded  to  her  by  the 
so-called  tri-partite  agreement  by  which 
the  United  States,  Great  Britain  and  Ger- 
many apportioned  the  Samoan  group 
among  themselves.  This  arrangement 
was  initiated  in  Cleveland's  first  term, 
concluded  in  Harrison's  term,  and  revised 
by  arbitration  in  McKinley's  term. 

It  has  been  said  that  Great  Britain's 
acquiescence  to  Germany's  participation 
was  obtained  as  compensation  for  the 
Kaiser's  refusal  to  join  France  and  Rus- 
sia in  an  anti-British  league  during  the 
Boer  war. 

Q. — How   did    Germany    get   into 
China? 

A. — Kiau-Chau  in  China,  was  seized  by 
the  Germans  in  1897  in  retaliation  for  the 
murder  of  some  German  missionaries, 
but  was  leased  from  China  for  99  years  in 
1899,  about  the  time  that  Britain  leased 
Wei-hai-wei  on  the  same  peninsula.  Its 
area  is  about  200  square  miles.  33,000 
Chinese  lived  there,  and  1,848  Germans, 
including  the  garrison  of  marines.  It  has 
a  fine  harbor. 

Q. — What   other  possessions   had 
Germany  ? 

A. — Togo,  in  Upper  Guinea,  Africa,  be- 
tween the  British  Gold  Coast  on  the  west 
and  the  French  Dahomey  on  the  east.  It 
is  33,70O  square  miles,  and  300  Germans 
lived  there.  The  Cameroons,  between 


British  Nigeria  and  French  Congo,  are 
191,130  square  miles ;  1,130  Germans  lived 
there.  German  Southwest  Africa  lies  be- 
tween Portuguese  West  Africa  and  Cape 
Colony.  Area,  322,450  square  miles ;  12,- 
135  Germans  lived  there.  German  East 
Africa,  384,180  square  miles,  lies  between 
British  East  Africa  and  Portuguese  East 
Africa;  has  a  population  of  7,500,000  na- 
tive and  had  3,580  Germans.  The  Ger- 
man colonial  possessions  together  had  a 
total  area  of  1,000,000  square  miles,  and 
a  population  of  14,000,000.  Of  the  whites, 
some  25,000  in  all,  20,750  were  Germans. 
This  does  not  include  the  military  forces, 
which  numbered  about  4,500  Germans  and 
3,825  natives. 

Q. — Were  the  German  colonies  a 
good  investment? 

A. — They  cost  Germany  in  administra- 
tion and  special  grants  about  $15,000,000 
annually.  Many  Germans  regard  German 
colonial  expansion  in  these  tropical  lands 
as  mere  waste  of  money.  It  was  actually 
costing  about  $750  each  year  for  every 
German  living  in  the  colonies. 

Q. — What  part  of  Canada  is 
French?  Are  they  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  war? 

A. — 2,000,000  out  of  7,200,000  are 
French.  It  would  seem  that  some  are 
plainly  opposed  to  the  war,  and  that  as 
a  body  the  French  Canadians  are  indif- 
ferent at  least.  Up  to  the  time  the  Ca- 
nadian draft  law  was  passed,  out  of 
nearly  400,000  Canadian  enlistments,  only 
about  20,000  were  French  Canadians ; 
and  Sir  Wilfred  Laurier,  a  French  Ca- 
nadian, and  formerly  the  Premier  of  the 
Dominion,  led  the  opposition  party  and 
made  his  political  issue  opposition  to  the 
conscription  bill. 

Q. — Has  Italy  annexed  the  Turk- 
ish islands  which  she  occupied 
in  her  war  with  Turkey  in 
1911-12? 

A. — Yes.  As  soon  as  she  declared  war 
against  Turkey,  in  June,  1915,  she  for- 
mally annexed  them.  This  appears  to 
have  been  her  only  act  of  aggression 
against  the  Turks.  According  to  the 
term  of  the  Treaty  of  Ouchy,  1912, 
Italy  undertook  to  evacuate  these  islands 
and  to  pay  Turkey  no  less  than  $400,000 
annually  as  compensation  for  the  loss  of 
revenue  from  Tripoli.  As  it  turns  out, 
it  was  a  good  thing  she  did  find  it  im- 
possible to  carry  out  her  treaty  obligations 
before  the  present  war  broke  out.  Under 


32  Questions  and  Answers 

Italian  rule  these  islands  will  presumably  River  settlement.  The  region  was  ac- 

be  far  more  prosperous  than  under  Turk-  quired  through  a  treaty,  negotiated  by 

ish,  but  the  Greeks,  of  course,  are  very  Gustav  Nachtigal,  on  July  15,  1884.  Ger- 

resentful  of  Italy's  possessing  herself  of  many  gradually  extended  its  influence  to 

what  they  regard  as  their  natural  heritage,  the  interior.  In  1905  and  1906,  collisions 

took  place  between  the  French  and  Ger- 

Q. — What  does  "the  Kamerun"  man  troops.  An  accurate  survey  resulted 

mean?  *n  a  new  boundary  convention  in  1908, 

whereby  natural  features  of  the  land  were 

A. — The  "Kamerun"  is  the  German  adopted  as  boundary  lines.  The  name 

name  for  "Cameroon" — a  German  protec-  "Cameroon"  means  "crab  river,"  given  to 

torate  in  West  Africa,  bounded  west  by  an  estuary  where  many  Crustacea  were 

the  Atlantic,  northwest  by  British  Ni-  found.  The  name  was  later  given  to  the 

geria,  north  by  Lake  Chad,  east  and  south  neighboring  mountains  and  extended  in 

by  French  Congo  and  the  Spanish  Muni  its  German  form  to  the  entire  region. 


HOW  WE  GOT  INTO  IT 


Q. — Were  the  rights  of  any  neu- 
trals respected  by  the  belliger- 
ents? 

A. — They  were  not.  Both  sides  pro- 
fessed scrupulous  regard  for  the  rights 
of  nations  not  in  the  war,  but  each  side 
at  once  placed  its  own  belligerent  inter- 
ests before  everything  else. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  trespass 
against  neutral  rights? 

A. — The  practical  abrogation  of  the 
Declaration  of  London,  which  had  pro- 
vided very  excellent  safeguards  for  neu- 
tral commercial  rights  on  the  sea. 

Q. — Was  the  "Declaration"  an  es- 
tablished part  of  international 
law? 

A.— It  had  not  been  ratified  by  some 
of  the  nations,  but  it  had  been  signed  by 
almost  all,  and,  before  the  war  began,  it 
had  been  considered  as  the  established 
code  by  which  belligerents  and  neutrals 
were  to  be  guided. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  result  of 
the  abrogation? 

A. — A  sweeping  definition  of  the  mean- 
ing of  "contraband,"  which  was  enlarged 
bit  by  bit  till  it  included  practically  every 
article  of  important  sea-commerce. 

Q. — How  could  belligerents  de- 
clare neutral  shipments  contra- 
band? 

A. — They  could  not  in  international  law. 
Neutral  nations  had  the  absolute  unques- 
tioned right  to  import  anything  from  ar- 
tillery to  wheat  for  their  own  use. 

Q. — Why,  then,  did  new  definitions 
affect  neutrals? 

A. — Because  the  sweeping  definition  of 
"contraband"  was  followed  by  an  equally 
sweeping  claim  that  all  goods  that  were 
contraband  when  destined  directly  for  an 
enemy,  were  equally  contraband  when 
destined  for  a  neutral  port  under  circum- 
stances that  created  the  suspicion  that 
they  were  for  ultimate  enemy  use. 


Q. — Was  this  the  only  infraction  of 
neutral  rights? 

A. — No.  Almost  simultaneously  the 
belligerents  claimed  the  right  to  visit, 
search  and  seize  all  ships,  under  any  flag, 
in  any  part  of  the  seas  around  Europe. 

Q. — Is  that  not  a  legal  use  of  rights 
of  blockade? 

A. — No.  Blockade  had  been  clearly  de- 
fined, and  the  definition  clearly  established 
both  by  international  agreements  and  by 
international  observance.  Legal  block- 
ade was  sharply  limited  to  actual  invest- 
ment by  naval  forces  of  specific  coasts  and 
ports. 

Q. — Did  the  neutrals  object? 

A. — They  did.  But,  with  the  exception 
of  the  United  States,  they  were  powerless 
to  do  more  than  object,  and  they  felt 
constrained  to  do  their  objecting  most 
diplomatically  and  cautiously. 

Q.— Did  the  United  States  object? 

A. — The  United  States  objected  most 
strongly,  declaring  certain  methods  of  the 
belligerents  in  "imposing  a  contraband 
nature  on  cargoes  bound  for  neutral  ports 
are  without  justification";  and  in  regard 
to  blockade,  that  it  was  "illegal  and  in- 
defensible." (American  Note  to  Great 
Britain,  October  21,  1915.) 

Q. — Was    the    remonstrance    suc- 
cessful? 

A. — No.  The  belligerents  were  cour- 
teous but  uncompromising.  Instead  of 
relaxing  their  hold,  they  increased  it  till 
they  controlled  the  sea-borne  commerce 
everywhere,  even  in  oceans  and  ports  far 
from  the  scene  of  war. 

Q. — Did  it  really  injure  the  United 
States? 

A. — It  did  from  the  viewpoint  of  na- 
tional dignity  and  rights,  but  not  from 
the  commercial  and  financial  viewpoint. 
While  individuals  suffered  severely,  the 
national  commerce,  as  a  whole,  grew 
enormously  in  value,  because  of  the  vast 
purchases  by  the  belligerents  who  con- 
trolled the  sea.  Individuals,  of  course, 
whose  business  had  depended  largely  on 
imports  to,  or  exports  from,  blockaded 


33 


34 


Questions  and  Answers 


countries,  suffered  heavily.  Some  were 
ruined.  It  is  estimated  that  the  claims 
for  damage  by  individuals  total  all  of 
half  a  billion. 

Q. — How  did  the  weak  neutrals 
fare? 

A. — Badly.  Their  entire  ocean  trade, 
both  incoming  and  outgoing,  became  sub- 
ject to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  belliger- 
ents. 

Q. — Did  the  small  neutrals  not 
profit  by  commerce  with  the 
blockaded  powers? 

A. — They  did ;  and  this  fact  greatly  in- 
volved the  whole  subject.  Legally,  they 
had  the  full  right  to  buy  anything  they 
chose  in  foreign  countries  and  to  sell  it 
again  to  whom  they  chose,  belligerent  or 
not. 

Q. — But  the  legal  right  was  not 
recognized? 

A. — Emphatically  not,  in  practice, 
though  it  was  not  absolutely  and  wholly 
denied  officially.  To  deny  the  whole  right 
bluntly  and  squarely  would  have  laid  the 
basis  for  possible  huge  claims  of  dam- 
ages after  the  war,  not  to  mention  the 
possible  immediate  effect  on  the  national 
pride  of  the  small  nations. 

Q. — Just  how  did  the  belligerents 
enforce  control  of  neutral 
trade? 

A. — By  a  very  shrewd  method,  under 
which  associations  of  merchants  in  the 
small  neutral  countries  were  formed,  such 
as  the  often-named  Overseas  Trust  of 
Holland.  These  associations,  acting  as 
wholly  private  individuals  or  corporations, 
gave  satisfactory  guarantees  that  imports 
assigned  to  them  would  not  pass  on  to 
the  enemy. 

Q. — Could  nobody  else  buy  and  sell 
as  he  pleased? 

A. — Technically  and  ostensibly,  yes. 
Actually,  no.  The  belligerents  saw  to  it 
that  no  goods  should  enter  the  neutral 
countries  adjoining  their  enemies,  except 
goods  for  the  associations  whom  they 
could  trust. 

Q. — Was  that  not  an  infraction  of 
sovereignty  ? 

A. — It  was  in  actuality,  but  in  the  form 
in  which  it  was  done,  the  governments  of 


the  small  neutral  nations  were  enabled 
to  ignore  the  actual  matter  as  being  a 
purely  private  concern  of  their  citizens, 
while  diplomatically  and  officially  they 
continued  to  maintain  their  assertion  of 
iull  neutral  rights  and  their  refusal  to 
permit  any  abrogation  of  them. 

Q.— Did  all  the  little  neutrals  per- 
mit it? 

A. — Holland,  Denmark  and  Norway  did. 
Sweden  refused,  and  demanded  full  rights 
without  compromise,  but  she  had  to  yield 
bit  by  bit. 

Q. — Was  American  neutrality  the 
kind  known  as  "benevolent 
neutrality?" 

A. — Following  the  official  proclamation 
of  the  nation's  neutrality  in  formal  diplo- 
matic manner  (August  4,  1914),  President 
Wilson  issued  an  appeal  to  the  American 
people  (August  19,  1914),  in  which  he 
said  that  "the  United  States  must  be  neu- 
tral in  fact  as  well  as  in  name." 

Q. — How  did  this  differ  from  be- 
nevolent neutrality? 

A. — The  essence  of  "benevolent"  neu- 
trality is  that  it  is  neutrality  in  name  only. 

Q. — What  is  the  test  of  strict  neu- 
trality? 

A. — A  nation  neutral  in  fact  as  well  as 
in  name  rigidly  applies  all  rulings  and 
laws  equally  to  both  belligerents.  It  gives 
them  exactly  the  same  rights  and  denies 
them  exactly  the  same  privileges.  It  re- 
fuses officially  to  encourage  or  discourage 
one  as  against  the  other.  It  refrains  of- 
ficially from  suggesting  that  the  one  is 
justified  or  guilty  as  against  the  other. 

Q. — What  is  the  course  of  a  na- 
tion observing  benevolent  neu- 
trality? 

A. — It  stretches  points  in  favor  of  the 
favored  party  and  strains  interpretations 
against  the  non-favored  party.  It  gives 
aid  and  comfort  to  the  favored  party  to 
the  utmost  degree  possible  without  laying 
itself  open  to  proof  that  it  has  committed 
violations  of  the  technical  laws  of  neu- 
trality. 

Q. — Is  benevolent  neutrality  recog- 
nized as  legal? 

A. — Only  by  the  beneficiaries.  The 
non-favored  nation  never  recognizes  the 


How  We  Got  Into  It 


35 


right  to  exercise  "benevolent"  neutrality, 
and  always  retaliates  if  it  dares  do  so. 

Q. — Were  not  Americans  in  favor 
of  the  Allies?  Was  this  a  vio- 
lation of  neutrality? 

A. — All  that  is  expected  of  a  nation  is 
that  it  shall  be  neutral  so  far  as  its  gov- 
ernment and  its  execution  of  laws  are 
concerned.  The  attitude  of  the  people 
may  cause  a  highly  critical  situation,  yet 
a  belligerent  government  cannot  remon- 
strate, so  long  as  the  government  of  the 
neutral  nation  does  not  officially  encour- 
age public  sentiment. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  infraction 
of  American  neutrality? 

A. — Attempts  to  supply  belligerent  war- 
ships were  the  first  grave  disturbances  of 
American  neutrality. 

Q. — Were  the  attempts  confined  to 
Germany  ? 

A. — No.  Both  sides  at  first  took  ad- 
vantage, where  they  could,  of  getting  sup- 
plies in  American  ports. 

Q. — Did  the  United  States  object 
impartially  ? 

A. — Yes.  But  the  German  attempts,  in 
actual  fact,  were  serious  and  demanded 
serious  action,  while  the  British  attempts 
were  unimportant.  The  British  warships 
had  ample  facilities  in  Canadian  and  other 
ports  under  Allied  control.  Therefore, 
such  little  supplying  as  was  done  through 
American  ports  was  slight  and  really  neg- 
ligible. The  German  warships,  on  the 
other  hand,  having  no  German  or  other 
friendly  ports  available,  endeavored  to 
get  full  cruising  supplies  (coal,  food,  etc.), 
and  this  meant  that  American  ports  would 
be  made,  in  fact,  naval  bases  for  them. 

Q. — Did  the  attempts  to  supply 
German  warships  bring  Amer- 
ican States  into  the  war? 

A. — No,  except  in  so  far  as  they  may 
have  helped  to  irritate  the  public  mind. 
Specifically,  they  were  few,  and  they  were 
completely  stopped  with  comparative  ease. 

Q. — What  was  the  specific  griev- 
ance that  led  us  into  war? 

A. — The  use  in  a  new  way  of  a  new  In- 
strument of  sea-war,  the  submarine. 


Q. — Was  it  because  the  submarines 
destroyed  our  ships? 

A. — No.  It  was  because  in  sinking  ships 
(comparatively  few  of  which  were  ours), 
the  German  submarines  destroyed  Ameri- 
can lives. 

Q. — Would  we  have  warred  ulti- 
mately on  Germany  for  sink- 
ing our  ships,  even  if  no  lives 
had  been  destroyed? 

A. — Possibly,  but  probably  not.  In  the 
first  place,  we  had  very  few  merchant 
ships  under  the  American  flag.  In  the 
second  place,  sinkings  that  entailed  merely 
a  loss  of  property  might  have  fallen  under 
practically  the  same  category  of  violated 
sea-laws,  and  the  United  States  had 
charged  both  sides  with  such  violations. 

Q. — Did  Germany  claim  justifica- 
tion for  war-zone  decrees  ? 

A. — Germany  claimed  that  her  war-zone 
decrees  were  justified  under  the  customs 
of  war  that  permitted  retaliatory  meas- 
ures against  an  enemy  who  practised  vio- 
lations on  his  part. 

Q. — Had  there  been  a  previous  de- 
cree? 

A. — The  first  war-zone  decree  was  is- 
sued by  Great  Britain  on  November  3, 
1914.  It  declared  "the  whole  of  the  North 
Sea  a  military  area." 

Q. — But  had  not  the  Germans 
planted  mines  in  the  North 
Sea? 

A. — Both  Germany  and  Great  Britain 
had  charged  each  other  with  having  done 
this. 

Q. — When  did  the  Germans  issue 
the  first  war-zone  decree? 

A. — On  February  4,  1915.  The  Ger- 
man decree  declared  "the  waters  sur- 
rounding Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  in- 
cluding the  whole  British  Channel"  to  be 
within  the  seat  of  war. 

Q. — Did  this  decree  open  sub- 
marine campaign  against  neu- 
tral shipping? 

A. — No.  This  war-zone  decree  was 
against  "enemy  ships."  In  a  German  com- 
munication to  the  United  States  (Feb- 
ruary 16,  1915),  the  German  Government 


Questions  and  Answers 


said  specifically:  "The  German  Govern- 
ment announced  merely  the  destruction  of 
enemy  merchant  vessels  found  within  the 
area  of  maritime  war,  and  not  the  de- 
struction of  all  merchant  vessels." 

Q. — Did  the  United  States  ac- 
quiesce? 

A. — No.  The  United  States  unquali- 
fiedly protested  against  both  British  and 
German  war-zone  decrees  and  has  never 
changed  that  attitude.  The  American 
note  to  Germany  said  that  "the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  would  be  con- 
strained to  hold  the  Imperial  German 
Government  to  a  strict  accountability." 

Q. — Did  this  decree  bring  us  into 
the  war? 

A. — No.  It  created  a  very  difficult  sit- 
uation, but  it  did  not  lead  to  war,  even 
though  it  was  followed  by  the  torpedoing 
of  the  Lusitania  (May  7,  1915)  ;  the  sink- 
ing of  the  Arabic  (August  19)  ;  and,  fi- 
nally, the  sinking  of  the  Sussex  (March 
24,  1916),  with  the  loss  of  American  lives 
in  each  case. 

Q. — Did  America  adopt  a  hostile 
attitude  toward  Germany  after 
the  first  submarine  war-zone 
decree? 

A. — The  United  States  insisted  firmly 
and  sternly  on  its  rights,  but  it  was  not 
hostile.  It  went  so  far  as  to  propose  a 
reasonable  compromise  between  the  bel- 
ligerents. 

Q. — What  was  the  compromise? 

A- — It  was  a  suggestion,  made  in  a  note 
to  both  Great  Britain  and  France  (Feb- 
ruary 20,  1915),  that  both  sides  should 
agree  to  abstain  from  sowing  floating 
mines ;  that  submarines  be  used  only  for 
visit  and  search ;  that  neither  side  per- 
mit its  merchant  vessels  to  carry  neutral 
flags  for  disguise. 

Q. — Was  that  the  whole  scope  of 
suggested  compromise? 

A. — No.  President  Wilson's  note  sug- 
gested that  Germany  agree  that  all  im- 
portations of  foodstuffs  from  the  United 
States  (and  other  neutral  countries  wish- 
ing to  enter  into  the  agreement)  be  con- 
signed to  agencies  designated  by  the 
American  government,  which  agencies 
should  control  the  distribution  so  as  to 
guarantee  that  none  of  it  should  reach 
any  except  non-combatants. 


Q. — Did  the  note  ask  England  to 
let  such  foodstuffs  pass? 

A. — Yes.  The  President  suggested  that 
foodstuffs  consigned  to  such  American 
agencies  in  Germany  be  permitted  to  pass 
without  detention  or  interference. 

Q. — Did  the  suggestion  lead  to 
anything? 

A. — No.  Neither  this  nor  other  diplo- 
matic correspondence  that  followed  pro- 
duced any  material  changes  in  the  situa- 
tion. 

Q. — Did  the  German  Embassy  is- 
sue a  warning  to  passengers 
on  the  "Lusitania"? 

A. — The  following  advertisement  ap- 
peared in  the  New  York  World  and  the 
New  York  Times  May  i,  1915,  seven  days 
before  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania: 
"Travelers  intending  to  embark  on  the  At- 
lantic voyage  are  reminded  that  a  state 
of  war  exists  between  Germany  and  her 
Allies  and  Great  Britain  and  her  Allies ; 
that  the  zone  of  war  includes  the  waters 
adjacent  to  the  British  Isles;  that,  in  ac- 
cordance with  formal  notice  given  by  the 
Imperial  German  Government,  vessels  fly- 
ing the  flag  of  Great  Britain,  or  of  any 
of  her  Allies,  are  liable  to  destruction  in 
those  waters,  and  that  travelers  sailing 
in  the  war  zone  on  ships  of  Great  Britain 
or  her  Allies  do  so  at  their  own  risk.  Im- 
perial German  Embassy,  Washington,  D. 
C,  April  22,  1915." 

Q. — Did  Germany  offer  indemnity 
for  Americans  lost  on  the 
"Lusitania"? 

A. — Yes.  While  negotiations  over  the 
Lusitania  case  were  still  pending  she 
stated  her  willingness  to  pay  indemnity 
for  the  deaths  of  Americans — whose 
deaths  Germany  "greatly  regretted,"  but 
she  refused  to  disavow  the  act  of  the  sub- 
marine commander  in  sinking  the  Lusi- 
tania, or  to  admit  that  such  act  was  il- 
legal. 

Q. — Was  it  ever  proved  that  a  Ger- 
man submarine  sank  the  "Sus- 
sex"? 

A. — Yes.  The  evidence  collected  by 
American  naval  officers  and  the  British 
Admiralty  was  overwhelming,  and  Ger- 
many, which  had  claimed  at  first  that  the 
only  German  submarine  in  the  vicinity 
had  sunk  a  British  warship,  finally  ad- 
mitted that  the  ship  sunk  must  have  been 
the  Sussex. 


How  We  Got  Into  It 


37 


Q. — When  did  the  Germans  issue 
the  decree  that  brought  us  into 
the  war? 

A. — On  January  31,  1917,  Germany  an- 
nounced that  from  February  i,  1917,  un- 
restricted submarine  warfare  would  be- 
gin against  all  merchant  ships,  enemy  and 
neutral,  in  specified  war  zones  and  that 
they  would  be  sunk  without  warning. 

Q. — Before  this,  had  we  not  tried 
to  make  peace? 

A. — Yes.  On  December  18,  1916,  Presi- 
dent Wilson  had  sent  to  all  the  belliger- 
ents an  identical  note,  in  which  he  sug- 
gested an  expression  of  their  respective 
views  on  terms  under  which  the  war 
might  be  ended. 

Q. — Had  this  note  been  brought 
out  by  any  specific  develop- 
ments ? 

A. — Yes.  On  December  12,  1916,  Ger- 
many had  made  formal  proposal  to  enter 
"forthwith  into  peace  negotiations." 

Q. — Did  the  President  offer  media- 
tion? 

A. — He  was  careful  to  say  clearly: 
"The  President  is  not  proposing  peace ; 
he  is  not  even  offering  mediation." 

Q. — Who  was  Austrian  ambassa- 
dor at  the  outbreak  of  war? 

A. — There  was  none.  Some  time  be- 
fore Dr.  Dumba,  the  former  Austrian 


ambassador,  had  been  discovered  in  plots 
to  corrupt  the  Austrian  and  Slav  workers 
in  American  ammunition  plants,  and  had 
his  passports  handed  to  him  as  "persona 
non  grata"  to  the  American  Government. 

Q. — Were  Capt.  Von  Papen  and 
the  rest  representatives  of  the 
German  Government? 

A. — Capts.  Von  Papen  and  Boy-Ed 
were,  respectively,  the  German  military 
attache  and  the  German  naval  attache  to 
the  German  Embassy.  Dr.  Dernberg  was 
technically  the  president  of  the  German 
Red  Cross  Association,  but,  in  reality, 
was  a  German  propaganda  agent. 

Q. — Had  Germany  plotted  to  em- 
broil Mexico  with  the  United 
States? 

A. — Yes.  The  German  Foreign  Sec- 
retary, Count  yon  Zimmerman,  en- 
deavored to  enlist  the  Carranza  gov- 
ernment in  case  the  United  States 
went  to  war  with  Germany,  promising  to 
concede  it  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  and  part 
of  Texas  as  spoils  of  war,  as  being  for- 
mer Mexican  territory. 

Q. — Who  were  the  British  and 
French  ambassadors  to  Ger- 
many at  the  outbreak  of  the 
war? 

A. — Sir  Edward  Goschen,  the  British  ; 
and  M.  Jules  Cambon,  the  French. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 


Q. — What  is  meant  by  freedom  of 
the  seas? 

A. — The  American  doctrine  of  freedom 
of  seas  is  that  merchant  ships  shall  be 
free  to  traverse  the  seas  of  all  the  world, 
in  war  as  well  as  in  peace.  Under  this 
doctrine,  there  would  be  no  commerce  de- 
stroying, no  taking  of  prizes  and  no  seiz- 
ures of  cargoes.  If  it  were  in  force  now, 
a  German  warship  could  not  seize  a 
British  or  American  ship,  and  a  British 
or  American  warship  could  not  seize  a 
German  ship.  In  other  words,  the  navies 
might  fight  on  the  oceans,  but  private 
ships  could  pass  them  unafraid,  flaunting 
their  flags. 

Q. — Could  warships  not  interfere 
with  them  at  all? 

A. — The  only  qualification  that  the 
United  States  admits  as  part  of  this  prin- 
ciple is  that  merchant  ships  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  the  present  rules  of  seizure,  etc., 
if  they  attempt  to  enter  ports  that  are 
actually  under  tangible  blockade ;  and  that 
all  ships  are  subject  to  visit  and  search 
for  contraband.  Such  contraband,  how- 
ever, must  be  clearly  and  specifically  de- 
nned, and  the  list  of  contraband  sharply 
limited  to  articles  actually  destined  for 
military  purposes. 

Q. — Did  the  British  blockade  ac- 
cord with  International  Law? 

A. — According  to  international  law,  if 
a  blockade  is  declared  it  must  be  effective ; 
that  is,  warships  must  actually  be  within 
a  certain  distance  of  the  port  designated 
as  invested.  Britain  is  blockading  Ger- 
many at  Gibraltar,  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Channel,  and  to  the  north  of  Scotland. 
Therefore,  technically,  a  blockade  does 
not  exist  and  foodstuffs  which,  under  no 
circumstances  used  to  be  regarded  as 
contraband  of  war,  could  not  be  stopped. 

Q. — But  how  about  humanity? 

A. — As  to  the  matter  of  inhumanity, 
there  is  really  little  difference  between  be- 
sieging a  town  and  starving  the  inhabi- 
tants into  surrender,  and  besieging  a  na- 
tion with  the  object  of  starving  it  into 
giving  in. 


Q. — Has  the  food  blockade  by 
Great  Britain  been  parallelled 
in  past  history? 

A. — No ;  for  the  simple  reason  that 
never  before  has  it  been  possible  to  iso- 
late a  country  entirely.  Napoleon  tried 
to  compel  the  European  nations  to  cease 
trading  with  Great  Britain,  but  as  the 
British  Fleet  maintained  command  of  the 
seas,  his  efforts  came  to  naught.  During 
the  Civil  War  in  America,  the  Southern 
ports  were  blockaded,  but,  as  the  country 
did  not  import  edibles,  it  resolved  itself 
into  a  blockade  against  munitions  of  war. 

Q. — Was  food  blockade  used  in  the 
American  Civil  War? 

A. — The  Northern  fleets  blockaded 
Southern  ports,  but  not  with  the  object 
of  starving  the  Confederates  into  sur- 
render by  "food  blockade."  What  Presi- 
dent Lincoln  wished  to  prevent  was  the 
receipt  of  arms  and  ammunition  by  the 
Southerners  and  the  export  of  cotton, 
which  was  the  chief  and  practically  only 
source  of  financial  income  to  the  South. 
The  seceding  States,  being  wholly  agri- 
cultural, were  self-supporting  so  far  as 
food  was  concerned. 

Q. — When  were  modern  blockade 
rules  established? 

A. — By  the  Congress  of  Paris  in  1856, 
at  the  close  of  the  Crimean  War.  This 
Congress  laid  down  the  following  prin- 
ciples of  maritime  law:  (l)  privateering 
is  and  remains  abolished ;  (2)  neutral  flag 
covers  enemy  goods,  with  the  exception 
of  contraband;  (3)  with  the  same  excep- 
tion, neutral  goods  under  an  enemy's  flag 
are  not  subject  to  capture;  (4)  blockades 
to  be  binding  must  be  effective.  The  dec- 
laration was  signed  by  all  the  powers  rep- 
resented at  the  congress :  England,  France, 
Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey,  and  Prussia. 
Most  other  powers  have  since  signed.  The 
United  States  did  not  sign,  but  has  always 
observed  the  declaration  and  treated  it  as 
binding  law.  In  1898  the  United  States 
and  Spain,  neither  of  them  a  signatory, 
observed  the  rules. 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  qualify  their 
war-zone  decree  as  against  the 
United  States? 

A. — They  offered  to  permit  free  passage 
for  one  American  ship  each  week  in  each 


Freedom  of  the  Seas 


39 


direction,  using  Falmouth  as  the  port  of 
arrival  and  departure.  Obviously,  the 
United  States  could  not  accept  this  with 
self-respect,  not  to  mention  the  fact  that 
by  such  acceptance  we  should  have  tacitly 
recognized  the  international  legality  of 
the  German  decree. 

Q. — Can  you  give  both  sides  of  the 
"armed  ship"  controversy? 

A. — The  Allied  governments  claimed 
that  a  merchant  ship  "armed  solely  for 
defense"  was  not  to  be  considered  a  war- 
ship. The  Germans  claimed  that  the  line 
between  "defense"  and  "offense"  could  not 
be  drawn.  Further,  they  claimed  that  Al- 
lied ships,  or,  at  least,  British  ships,  had 
secret  instructions  to  sink  submarines, 
either  by  ramming  or  gun-fire,  and  that, 
therefore,  they  rendered  it  impossible  for 
a  submarine  to  "visit  and  search." 

Q. — Was  there  any  truth  in  the 
German  claim? 

A. — In  1915  and  1916  the  German  Gov- 
ernment transmitted  to  the  United  States 
Government  a  long  series  of  British  Ad- 
miralty orders  and  instructions  found  on 
British  merchant  ships  captured  by  Ger- 
man vessels.  The  Germans  declared  that 
these  instructions  proved  that  British  mer- 
chant ships  had  orders  to  "proceed  ag- 
gressively against  any  submarine  which 
comes  in  sight." 

Q.-— Did  the  United  States  ever 
question  the  right  of  merchant 
ships  to  arm? 

A. — In  January  18,  1916,  the  State  De- 
partment sent  a  confidential  letter  to  the 
British,  French,  Russian,  and  Italian  am- 
bassadors, the  Belgian  minister  and,  later, 
to  the  Japanese  ambassador,  in  which  the 
rights  and  duties  of  submarine  war-ves- 
sels and  of  merchant  ships  were  discussed,  v 
and  the  following  statement  was  made : 
"I  should  add  that  my  government 
(United  States)  is  impressed  with  the 
reasonableness  of  the  argument  that  a 
merchant  ship  carrying  an  armament  of 
any  sort,  in  view  of  the  character  of  sub- 
marine warfare  and  the  defensive  weak- 
ness of  undersea  craft,  should  be  held  to 
be  an  auxiliary  cruiser  and  so  treated  by 
a  neutral,  as  well  as  by  a  belligerent  gov- 
ernment, and  is  seriously  considering  in- 
structing its  officials  accordingly." 

Q.— What  did  the  United  States 
finally  do? 

A. — Finding  that  the  Allied  govern- 
ments declined  to  acknowledge  that  armed 


merchant  ships  lost  their  peaceful  status 
when  "armed  solely  for  defense,"  the 
United  States  dropped  the  contention. 

Q. — Is  it  necessary  for  a  belligerent 
power  to  notify  neutrals  as  to 
the  position  of  mine  fields  that 
have  been  laid? 

A. — Yes.  The  convention  dealing  with 
this  matter  says  in  Article  3:  "When  an- 
chored automatic  contact  mines  are  em- 
ployed, every  possible  precaution  must  be 
taken  for  the  security  of  peaceful  ship- 
ping. The  belligerents  undertake  to  do 
their  utmost  to  render  these  mines  harm- 
less within  a  limited  time,  and  should  they 
cease  to  be  under  surveillance,  to  notify 
the  danger  zone  as  soon  as  military  exi- 
gencies permit,  by  a  notice  addressed  to 
shipowners,  which  must  also  be  communi- 
cated to  the  governments  through  diplo- 
matic channels."  This  leaves,  of  course, 
considerable  loop-hole,  as  military  exi- 
gencies may  not  permit  the  informing  of 
neutrals  concerning  mine  fields  for  a  long 
time  after  they  have  been  laid. 

Q. — Have  the  positions  of  mine 
fields  laid  by  Great  Britain 
been  declared  to  neutrals? 

A. — Yes.  They  have  been  duly  in- 
formed, as  is  provided  in  international 
law.  The  particulars  of  the  large  one 
which  was  laid  down  in  January,  1917, 
have  been  published.  According  to  this 
information  the  area  of  the  field  com- 
prised all  the  waters,  excepting  the  Dutch 
and  Danish  territorial  waters — that  is, 
within  three  miles  of  the  coast — lying 
southwest  and  eastward  of  a  line  com- 
mencing four  miles  from  the  coast  of 
Jutland,  in  latitude  56  north,  and  longi- 
tude 8  east,  and  passing  through  the  fol- 
lowing positions :  Latitude  56  north,  longi- 
tude 6  east;  latitude  54  north,  longitude 
0.45  east;  thence  to  a  position  in  latitude 
53  deg.  37  north,  longitude  5  east,  seven 
miles  off  the  coast  of  Holland.  That  is, 
tfie  field  extends  from  a  point  four  miles 
from  the  port  of  Ringkobing  in  Jutland, 
right  across  the  North  Sea,  slanting  rather 
southward,  but  including  the  Dogger  Bank 
in  its  area,  to  a  point  off  the  coast  of 
Yorkshire,  a  little  south  of  Flamboro 
Head.  From  the  Yorkshire  coast,  the 
area  of  the  mine  field  runs  southeast  to 
the  Dutch  Frisian  Islands.  Its  greatest 
width  is  about  320  miles,  and  north  and 
south  its  greatest  length  is  170  miles.  It 
entirely  blocks  the  approach  to  the  North 
Sea  coast  of  Germany,  excepting  through 
neutral  and  territorial  waters. 


40 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Did  the  Germans  declare  new 
war  zones  after  the  United 
States  entered  the  war? 

A. — They  did.  A  decree  of  January 
5,  1918,  established  two  very  large  barred 
areas  in  the  eastern  Atlantic,  one  being 
around  the  Cape  Verde  Islands  of?  the 
Senegal  coast  of  Africa,  and  the  other 
surrounding  the  Madeira  and  Azores  Is- 
lands. The  areas  of  the  zones,  as  stated 
in  the  official  communications  sent  to  the 
United  States  Government  through  the 
Swiss  Legation,  were  such  as  to  cover 
the  entrance  to  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar 
and  the  usual  steamship  routes  between 
European  and  South  American  ports,  as 
well  as  routes  to  European  ports  from  the 
Panama  Canal,  thus  forcing  extremely 
roundabout  passages  and  hugely  in- 
creased distance  if  ships  desired  to  avoid 
the  dangerous  areas.  One  reason  given 
by  the  Germans  for  the  new  2ones  was 
that  the  islands  were  being  used  as  enemy 
supports. 

Q. — Before  submarines,  did  not 
regular  cruisers  sink  captured 
merchant  vessels? 

A.— Yes.  In  doing  so  they  exercised 
the  right  granted  in  international  law  to 
belligerent  warships  against  enemy  ship- 
ping. If  they  chose  not  to  destroy  a  cap- 
tured ship,  but  rather  to  send  it  to  port 
under  a  prize-crew,  that  was  due  merely 
to  the  desire  of  the  captors  to  gain  bene- 
fit by  keeping  a  valuable  prize.  They  were 
not  bound  to  preserve  a  captured  ship. 

Q. — Then  why  was  there  an  outcry 
against  sinkings  by  subma- 
rines? 

A. — The  cruiser  or  other  large  warship 
could  take  on  board  the  crew  and  pas- 
sengers of  a  captured  ship.  The  subma- 
rine could  not.  Therefore,  the  submarine, 
even  if  it  exercised  the  duty  of  "visit  and 
search"  scrupulously  (in  other  words, 
even  if  it  did  not  torpedo  without  warn- 
ing), could  not  ensure  the  lives  of  those 
on  the  captured  ship.  They  had  to  be 
set  adrift  in  small  boats. 

Q. — Did  warships  never  set  crews 
of  captured  vessels  into  small 
boats? 

A. — They  did  so  often,  as  when  a  crui- 
ser captured  a  prize  near  an  enemy  har- 
bor and  found  it  necessary  to  destroy  the 
ship  at  once  and  get  away.  In  such  cases, 
the  occupants  were  generally  sent  ashore 


in  small  boats.  But  it  happened  very 
rarely  that  such  crews  were  set  adrift  far 
off-shore. 

Q. — Were  fleeing  merchant  ships 
shelled  before  the  days  of  sub- 
marines ? 

A. — They  were.  Every  warship  fired 
on  merchant  ships  that  failed  to  obey  the 
signal  to  lay  to.  If  the  merchant  ship  did 
not  cease  its  efforts  to  escape,  the  pur- 
suer continued  to  fire  until  the  fugitive 
was  either  stopped  or  sunk. 

Q. — What,  exactly,  are  the  rights 
of  a  merchant  ship  against  an 
enemy  warship? 

A.— Practically  only  one  right — the  right 
of  being  immune  from  deadly  attack  if 
its  master  and  crew  implicitly  obey  the 
orders  of  the  warship. 

Q. — Is  a  neutral  ship  compensated 
for  delay  if  captured? 

A. — If  his  ship  is  found  by  the  prize 
court  not  to  be  "a  good  prize,"  he  is  sup- 
posed ^to  receive  compensation.  If  contra- 
band is  found  on  board,  it  is  confiscated, 
but  the  vessel  goes  free,  unless  the  con- 
traband exceeds  half  the  entire  cargo.  If 
it  does,  his  ship  can  be  condemned,  and, 
of  course,  the  owner  would  get  no  com- 
pensation at  all. 

Q. — If  a  neutral  supplies  war  ma- 
terial, is  his  State  responsible? 

A. — Certainly  not.  Individuals  may  do 
what  they  like,  but  at  their  own  risk. 
They  cannot  claim  the  protection  of  their 
country  if  caught  breaking  international 
laws. 

Q. — What  is  a  prize  court? 

A.— It  is  a  court  appointed  by  any  na- 
tion (by  the  President  in  the  case  of  the 
United  States)  "to  take  cognizance  of 
and  judicially  proceed  upon  all  manner  of 
captures,  recaptures,  prizes,  vessels  and 
goods,  and  all  other  matters  of  prize  fall- 
ing within  its  jurisdiction." 

Q. — Are  decisions  of  the  prize  court 
final? 

A. — Great  Britain  allows  appeals  from 
her  national  prize  courts  to  the  Privy 
Council.  The  signatories  to  the  London 
Declaration  (which  the  belligerents  in  the 
war  declined  to  obey)  allowed  appeal  to 


Freedom  of  the  Seas 


an  International  Prize  Court  established 
by  the  last  Hague  Conference.  This  In- 
ternational Court  was  to  be  composed  of 
fifteen  members.  The  eight  Great  Powers 
(including  Japan)  were  to  appoint  one 
member  each ;  the  remaining  seven  were 
to  be  appointed  by  the  smaller  powers. 

Q. — What  happens  ultimately  to 
the  German  merchantmen  that 
England  has  captured? 

A. — That  is  decided  by  the  prize  courts. 
The  rule  that  is  laid  down  by  international 
observance  before  the  great  war  was  that 
those  vessels  captured  in  port  on  the  dec- 
laration of  war  and  those  taken  at  sea, 
which  were  not  aware  that  a  state  of  war 
existed,  are  merely  detained,  not  con- 
demned. At  the  end  of  the  war  these 
would  be  returned  to  their  owners  under 
this  rule. 

Q. — To  whom  do  the  prizes  be- 
long? 

A. — Those  captured  during  war  time 
belong  to  the  nation  that  captured  them. 
The  general  custom  has  been  for  the^crew 
of  the  vessel  which  captures  a  ship  _to 
receive  a  share  of  the  value  as  prize 
money,  but  that,  too,  is  a  matter  for  the 
prize  court. 

Q. — What  happens  to  the  crew  of  a 
captured  merchant  ship? 

A. — Under  a  special  convention,  to 
which  both  Great  Britain  and  Germany 
are  parties,  they  are  supposed  to  be  liber- 
ated on  parole.  Their  names  are  sent  to 
their  government  through  the  proper 
channel,  and  if  they  reach  their  native 
land  they  are  not  to  be  employed  in  the 
war.  This  has  not  always  been  done, 
however.  Neutral  sailors  found  on  an 
enemy  ship  are  liberated,  but  must  fend 
for  themselves. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  continuous 
voyage? 

A. — If  the  ultimate  destination  of  the 
goods,  though  shipped  to  a  neutral  port, 
is  enemy's  territory,  this  has  been  denned 
by  Great  Britain  in  this  war  as  a  con- 
tinuous voyage,  and  the  goods  may  be 
treated  as  if  shipped  direct  to  the  enemy's 
territory.  During  its  neutrality  the 
United  States  declined  to  recognize  this 
ruling. 


Q. — Who  is  to  determine  whether 
supplies  are  for  a  neutral  or 
actually  for  the  enemy? 

A. — Prize  courts.  In  actual  practice, 
of  course,  warships  arrest  vessels  on  sus- 
picion and  leave  the  prize  court  to  settle 
things  afterwards. 

Q. — Before  this  war,  was  there 
ever  a  case  of  arrest  of  goods 
on  the  ground  of  continuous 
voyage? 

A. — There  has  been  only  one  case  re- 
corded when  a  Prize  Court  clearly  con- 
demned a  vessel  on  this  ground.  It  was 
during  the  war  between  Italy  and  Abys- 
sinia. A  Dutch  ship  was  seized,  although 
bound  for  a  French  colonial  port,  as  she 
had  on  board  rifles  which  had  long  gone 
out  of  use  in  Europe,  and  which  were 
clearly  destined  for  King  Menelik  of 
Abyssinia. 

Q. — Did  the  Allies  ever  justify  re- 
taliation even  if  it  harmed  neu- 
trals? 

A. — Yes.  On  April  24,  1916,  in  the 
voluminous  British  note  to  Washington 
justifying  sea-blockade,  Sir  Edward  Grey 
said:  "His  Majesty's  Government  are 
surprised  to  notice  that  the  United  States 
seem  to  regard  all  such  measures  of  re- 
taliation in  war  as  illegal  if  they  should 
incidentally  inflict  injury  on  neutrals. 
The  advantage  which  any  such  principle 
would  give  to  the  determined  law-breaker 
•would  be  so  great  that  his  Majesty's 
Government  cannot  conceive  that  it  would 
commend  itself  to  the  conscience  of  man- 
kind." 

Q. — Did  the  north  apply  the  "con- 
tinuous voyage"  doctrine  in 
the  Civil  War? 

A. — No.  We  did  exactly  the  contrary. 
Many  cargoes  clearly  destined  for  the 
Confederacy  were  shipped  from  Europe  to 
Matamoras,  a  Mexican  Gulf  port  almost 
on  the  Texan  border.  Federal  naval  ves- 
sels seized  some  of  the  ships,  but  {he 
Federal  prize  courts  released  them  and 
ordered  that  damages  be  paid  to  the  own- 
ers, though  it  was  proved  beyond  doubt 
that  the  cargoes  were  all  to  be  passed 
across  the  Texan  border.  Our  State  De- 
partment stated  that  such  seizures  were 
illegal.  Great  Britain  at  that  time  pro- 
tested against  any  "continuous  voyage" 
doctrine. 


AMERICAN  ARMY  IN  FRANCE 


Q. — Why  did  we  decide  suddenly 
to  hurry  an  army  to  France? 

A. — Because  the  French  Military  Mis- 
sion which  visited  this  country  under 
General  Joffre  appealed  to  this  country 
to  do  so.  Several  causes  had  combined 
to  make  it  necessary.  The  disintegration 
of  Russia  as  a  military  power  was,  of 
course,  the  chief  cause.  But  the  French 
losses  in  recent  offensives  had  bee^  ex- 
ceedingly heavy,  and  though  the  achieve- 
ments had  been  brilliant  from  a  heroic 
viewpoint,  they  had  turned  out  to  be  com- 
parative failures  strategically.  There  had 
followed  a  decided  shattering  of  morale 
among  the  French  people,  _  who  had  be- 
gun to  lose  hope  of  ultimate  success. 
Facing  these  critical  conditions,  General 
Joffre  urged  that  even  a  few  American 
troops  would  be  invaluable  at  that  partic- 
ular time. 

Q. — How  many  American  soldiers 
went  to  Europe  in  1917? 

A. — January,  1918,  the  Secretary  of 
War  declared  officially  that  "instead  of 
having  50,000  or  100,000  men  in  France, 
we  have  many  more  than  that.  We  will 
have  more  than  half  a  million  men  in 
France  early  in  1918,  and  we  will  have 
\y2  million  who,  if  the  transportation  fa- 
cilities are  available,  can  be  shipped  to 
France  during  1918."  This  was  the  first 
specific  information  given  to  the  world 
regarding  the  size  of  the  American  Ex- 
peditionary Force  in  France. 

Q. — What  kind  of  place  is  France 
to  live  in? 

A. — That  part  of  France  where  the 
American  soldiers  are  is  mainly  agricul- 
tural country,  with  big  sections  in  vine- 
yards. There  are  long  stretches  of  flat 
country,  but  much  of  the  land  is  very 
pretty,  with  many  hills  and  woods. 

The  climate  is  mild,  but  there  is  a  good 
deal  of  rain,  making  much  drizzly 
weather.  The  summers  show  no  very 
high  average  temperature,  but  to  most 
foreigners  the  heat  seems  great 

Q. — Where  do  the  American  boys 
spend  their  days  off?  In  Paris? 

A. — No.  Paris  has  been  found  to  be 
demoralizing  to  the  men,  and  a  dangerous 
focus  of  infection  and  contagion  through 
the  loathsome  disease  that  menaces  every 


army  when  its  men  mingle  with  the 
women  of  big  cities.  Therefore,  the 
American  Government  has  arranged  with 
the  French  Government  to  get  a  very 
large  control  of  certain  places  behind  the 
American  lines,  and  these  have  been 
turned  into  recreation  cities  for  our  men. 

They  are  in  the  beautiful  department 
of  Savoy  (Savoie),  which  abuts  on  the 
Swiss  border  and  is  wedged  in  between 
Switzerland  and  Italy.  It  adjoins  the 
most  magnificent  mountain  scenery  in  the 
world,  Mont  Blanc  being  on  its  eastern 
border. 

The  delightful  and  noted  resort  of  Aix- 
les-Bains  is  one  of  the  recreation  cities 
in  this  region.  The  big  casino  there  has 
been  turned  over  to  the  American  Y.  M. 
C.  A.,  and  play-houses  and  other  amuse- 
ments ^  have  been  established.  Another 
town  is  Chambery,  where  three  casinos 
and  a  theater  have  been  leased  for  the 
use  of  the  Americans.  Still  another  place 
is  Challes-les-Eatix. 

Professional  performers  and  volunteer 
workers  arrange  for  every  possible  sort 
of  amusement.  In  addition,  there  are 
mountain  climbing,  boating,  automobiling, 
etc. 

Q. — Is  trench-warfare  new? 

A. — It  is  as  old  as  war.  The  Greeks 
and  Persians  utilized  trenches  2,400  years 
ago.  Csesar's  Roman  Legions  held 
trenches  in  Belgium. 

Q. — Why  is  it  referred  to  as  new 
so  often,  even  by  military  writ- 
ers? 

A. — It  is  new  in  the  sense  that  in  the 
great  war  it  became  the  fundamental  fea- 
ture of  warfare,  whereas  before  that 
trenches  had  been  used  only  incidentally. 
The  British  and  Germans  took  to  trenches 
in  September,  1914,  the  battle  of  the  Aisne 
being  the  last  open  battle. 

Q. — What  caused  this? 

A. — The  immense  amount  of  modern 
artillery,  its  immense  range,  and  its  great 
rapidity  of  fire. 

Q. — How  has  modern  artillery 
forced  trench-warfare? 

A. — By  creating  death-zones  that  ^are 
so  deep  (owing  to  the  enormous  variety 
in  gun-range),  and  so  impassable  (owing 


American  Army  in  France 


43 


to  the  lightning-like  fire),  that  two  fairly 
equal  armies,  trying  to  fight  a  pitched  bat- 
tle in  the  open,  would  both  be  decimated 
in  the  attempt  to  close  with  each  other. 

Q. — What  is  the  essential  feature 
of  trench- warfare  ? 

A. — The  soldiers  holding  the  actual  bat- 
tle-front are  in  deep  trenches  that  face 
each  other  everywhere.  Sometimes  the 
opposing  trenches  are  only  a  few  hundred 
feet  apart.  Sometimes  they  are  as  much 
as  a  mile  apart,  according  to  conditions. 

Q. — Do    these   men    fight   all   the 
time? 

A. — No.  For  days  they  may  not  ex- 
change a  shot.  For  weeks  there  may  not 
be  anything  at  a  given  place  except  oc- 
casional raids  or  the  attempts  of  scouting 
parties  to  gain  information. 

Q. — What  are  the  raids  for? 

A. — Partly  to  keep  the  other  side  on 
edge,  and  to  injure  its  morale  by  killing 
as  many  enemies  as  possible.  A  leading 
reason  for  raids,  however,  is  the  desire 
to  bring  back  prisoners. 

Q. — What  object  is  to  be  gained  by 
making  prisoners? 

A. — Usually  only  a  few  prisoners  are 
secured.  But  an  examination  of  the  pris- 
oners may  give  valuable  information.  By 
discovering  what  body  of  troops  they  be- 
long to,  the  captors  may  learn  about  im- 
portant changes  in  the  enemy  line,  etc. 
Cross-examination  of  the  prisoners  may 
betray  enemy  weaknesses. 

Q. — Just  what  is  a  trench  raid? 

A. — In  the  trench  raids  developed  in 
this  war,  a  very  small  number  of  men — 
sometimes  not  more  than  ten,  sometimes 
as  many  as  a  hundred — make  a  sudden 
surprise  rush  on  opposing  lines  that  con- 
tain ten  or  a  hundred  times  their  num- 
ber and  enough  machine  guns  and  can- 
non to  wipe  the  raiding  party  out  of 
existence,  except  for  the  elements  of  sur- 
prise and  speed.  Thus  the  raid  must 
only  take  a  very  few  minutes.  If  it  occu- 
pies more  time,  generally  all  the  raiders 
are  killed  or  captured.  As  soon  as  the 
surprise  is  over,  the  enemy  counter- 
attacks unless  the  raiders  have  succeeded 
in  getting  back  to  their  own  trenches  with 
their  booty  and  prisoners. 


Q. — Are  all  the  men  in  trenches 
now? 

A. — No.  The  immense  bodies  of  troops 
in  reserve,  etc.,  are  behind  the  trenches, 
well  out  of  gun-fire,  in  camps  and  vil- 
lages just  as  in  previous  wars,  the  chief 
difference  being  that  they  are  much  far- 
ther behind  the  actual  battle-front,  in 
order  to  be  out  of  the  range  of  enemy 
cannon. 

Q. — Do  the  trenches  form  an  un- 
broken line  across  Europe? 

A. — By  no  means.  There  are  hundreds 
of  miles  of  them,  but  there  is  much  ter- 
ritory that  is  made  so  impassable  by  artil- 
lery or  by  nature,  that  it  does  not  have 
to  be  held  by  men  actually  in  line. 

Q. — Why  could  not  one  side  or  the 
other  break  through  a  thinly 
held  trench-line? 

A. — It  could.  But  it  would  be  of  no 
use.  The  only  success  that  can  be  achieved 
in  trench-warfare  is  to  break  through  a 
fairly  broad  front  of  trench  and  then 
drive  so  great  a  body  of  troops  and  ar- 
tillery into  the  breach  as  to  threaten  a 
big  extent  of  enemy  line  on  both  sides 
of  the  opening. 

Q. — But  could  not  this  be  done  by 
a  sudden  stroke? 

A. — To  do  so  remains  the  hope  and  aim 
of  all  the  opposing  commanders.  But 
the  great  difficulty  is  that  such  a  stroke 
demands  the  element  of  surprise,  and 
there  are  three  important  obstacles  to 
surprise  in  modern  warfare. 

Q. — What  are  the  obstacles  to  sur- 
prise? 

A. — Aerial  scouting,  which  gives  each 
slde^sharp  notice  of  movements.  The  de- 
fensive power  of  long-range  guns,  which 
enables  the  attacked  side  to  pour  tre- 
mendous curtain-fire  on  the  assailants 
from  guns  so  far  in  the  rear  that  the 
attacking  troops  cannot  possibly  reach  and 
capture  them.  The  assailant's  vital  need 
lor  lots  of  artillery  on  his  side  which 
prevents  him  from  bringing  up  enough 
artillery  in  time  to  drive  home  a  surprise 
attack  on  a  truly  grand  scale. 

Q. — Do  both  sides  use  the  same 
system  of  trenches? 

A. — Practically.  After  the  German 
trench-systems  were  severely  punished  by 


44 


Questions  and  Answers 


the  British  and  French  method  of  pound- 
ing them  for  days  with  destructive  long- 
range  fire  of  almost  incredible  severity, 
the  Germans  did  devise  a  certain  change, 
by  which  they  established  the  so-called 
"pill-box  system."  But  except  for  this 
modification,  the  system  is  much  the  same 
on  each  side. 

Q._ What  are  "pill  boxes?" 

A. — The  "pill  box"  is  a  name  given  by 
the  British  to  a  concrete  block-house  in- 
troduced by  the  Germans,  during  the  early 
part  of  1917,  in  an  endeavor  to  find  a 
better  method  of  defense  against  the 
Allies'  gun-fire  than  the  trench  system. 
These  block-houses  are  scattered  to  a  con- 
siderable depth  over  the  country  to  be 
defended  and  have  proven  to  be  a  very- 
effective  system  of  defense.  Most  of 
them  are_  garrisoned  by  twelve  men  and 
armed  with  one  or  more  machine  guns. 
Some  of  the  larger  ones  have  garrisons 
of  as  many  as  sixty  men. 

Q. — What  are  trench  gates? 

A. — The  modern  trench  is  divided  into 
sections  by  gates  faced  with  barbed  wire. 
Their  purpose  is  to  prevent  raiding  parties 
from  rushing  along  the  trench.  Often  the 
operation  of  opening  the  gate  is  slow  and 
involved  so  that  a  party  of  raiders  shall 
lose  too  many  precious  moments  in  get- 
ting through,  even  if  it  is  clear  how  the 
gate  can  be  opened. 

Q. — Are  the  men  close  together  in 
the  trenches? 

A. — In  very  important  places  the  sol- 
diers may  be  shoulder  to  shoulder.  In 
other  places  not  so  important  or  not  open 
to  sudden  attack,  the  trenches  may  be  held 
so  thinly  that  there  is  a  man  only  every 
few  yards.  Some  trench-lines  are  held 
only  by  scattered  machine-gun  companies. 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  between 
a  machine  gun  and  a  rifle? 

A. — The  rifle  is  the  great  one-man 
weapon  of  war.  It  is  mobile — that  is,  the 
man  can  carry  it  with  him  anywhere  and 
he  can  carry  a  large  amount  of  ammuni- 
tion for  it.  He  can  use  it  quickly  and 
easily.  Its  mechanism  is  such  that  a  com- 
mon soldier  easily  learns  how  to  take  care 
of  it. 

The  machine  gun  is  much  heavier,  re- 
quires more  than  one  man  for  its  efficient 
use,  and  fires  such  huge  quantities  of  am- 
munition that  that  cannot  be  carried  by 
the  soldiers  themselves,  but  must  be  trans- 
ported specially.  Its  mechanism  is  more 


complicated    and    thus    requires    special 
knowledge  and  training. 

Q. — Must  soldiers  at  the  front  live 
in  trenches  all  the  time? 

A. — No.  Only  the  soldiers  actually 
holding  the  front-lines  are  in  trenches, 
and  even  they  are  not  kept  there  for  too 
long  a  time.  The  custom  is  to  relieve 
men  from  trench  duty  as  often  as  it  can 
be  done.  The  soldiers  not  on  trench  duty 
are  well  behind  the  front-lines,  generally 
safely  beyond  all  danger  of  gun-fire  from 
the  enemy.  They  live  in  villages,  can- 
tonments, and,  sometimes,  in  tents — but 
mostly  they  dwell  with  pretty  complete 
comfort  in  houses. 

Q. — How  do  American  soldiers 
live  when  training  for  the 
front? 

A. — The  men  are  generally  billeted  in 
villages,  and  frequently  sleep  in  barns. 
The  first  thing  they  do  in  taking  up  their 
quarters  is  to  police  the  community.  Po- 
licing means,  largely,  cleaning  up  and 
moving  or  burning  everything  that  endan- 
gers health  and  order,  purifying  the  water 
and  making  sure  in  general  of  sanitary 
arrangements.  There  is  nearly  always  a 
store  or  two  selling  American  matches, 
groceries,  canned  things,  and,  in  fact, 
pretty  nearly  everything  a  general  store 
would  carry — but  no  liquor. 

Q. — When  did  our  boys  take  over 
part  of  the  front  line? 

A. — In  February  5,  1918,  there  was  pub- 
lished in  the  United  States  a  statement 
that  "the  sector  occupied  by  the  American 
troops  is  northwest  of  Toul." 

Q. — Where  was  this? 

A. — This  description  showed  that  they 
were  occupying  a  line  between  Pont-a- 
Mousson  and  St.  Mihiel,  the  latter  the 
farthest  southern  salient  of  the  famous 
Verdun  positions. 

The  American  troops  had  the  formid- 
able line  of  Toul-Nancy-Luneville  behind 
them — one  of  the  greatest  of  the  French 
fortification  systems. 

Q. — Was  not  this  the  scene  of  the 
first  big  fighting  in  the  war? 

A. — Early  in  the  war  the  French  tried 
to  break  through  into  Germany  from  the 
gateway  of  the  land  dominated  by  Nancy. 
Successful  at  first,  they  were  forced  back, 
and  the  Germans,  in  turn,  tried  to  break 


American  Army  in  France 


45 


through  this  immense  sector  of  fortifica- 
tions (Verdun  -  Toul  -  Nancy  -  Luneville) 
and  sweep  forward  into  France.  They 
made  a  considerable  advance,  actually 
threatening  Nancy  with  capture.  But 
though  the  French  forces  had  met  a  bad 
defeat  in  the  battles  of  August  20,  21, 
1914,  they  succeeded  in  the  end  in  holding 
the  German  forces  much  on  the  lines  still 
occupied  three  years  later. 

Q. — When  American  troops  took 
over  this  front  line,  was  any 
German  territory  held  by  the 
Allies? 

A. — Yes.  In  Alsace.  South  of  Lor- 
raine the  French  held  trenches  in  German 
territory,  extending  from  Colmar,  a  town 
in  Alsace,  to  the  Swiss  border.  It  was 
a  small  strip,  but  of  great  sentimental  and 
moral  value  to  the  French. 

Q. — What  is  a  forlorn  hope? 

A. — It  is  a  service  so  desperate  that  few 
or  none  of  the  men  who  undertake  it  may 
hope  to  survive.  For  this  reason,  officers 
rarely  order  men  to  forlorn  hope  service, 
but  call  for  volunteers. 

A  forlorn  hope  rarely  is  called  for 
among  troops  who  are  on  the  offensive. 
It  is  almost  always  a  part  of  a  desperate 
defensive,  such  as  blowing  up  a  bridge 
under  terrific  bombardment,  holding  some 
post  to  delay  a  victorious  enemy,  and 
so  on. 

Now  and  then  a  victoriously  advancing 
commander  may  call  for  forlorn  hope 
service  to  attack  some  formidable  posi- 
tion, knowing  that  the  men  will  be  de- 
stroyed but  hoping  that  they  will  also  de- 
stroy the  enemy  stronghold,  and  thus,  by 
sacrificing  their  own  lives,  save  the  lives 
of  many  comrades. 

Q. — When  a  trench  is  heavily  bom- 
barded, are  the  men  not  al- 
lowed to  retreat  from  it? 

A. — Soldiers  posted  in  a  trench  must 
stay  in  it  till  they  get  direct  orders  to 
leave  it.  They  may  crouch  in  bomb- 
proof excavations  within  the  trenches  and 
otherwise  conceal  themselves  from  the 
bursting  projectiles,  because  they  know- 
that  while  the  shells  are  falling  on  their 
trench,  the  enemy  soldiers  cannot  assault 
it.  But  were  they  to  leave  it,  the  enemy 
might  instantly  stop  his  fire  and  send  his 
troops  in.  A  breach  thus  made  in  even  a 
limited  section  of  front  might  affect  an 
army-front  of  many  miles. 


Q. — Why  should  a  successful 
breach  in  an  army  front  im- 
peril hundreds  of  miles? 

A. — While  a  successful  breach  is  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  establish,  as  we  have 
said,  such  a  breach,  if  sufficiently  wide, 
may  let  the  enemy  force  men  and  guns 
through  and  expand  them  into  army  for- 
mation on  the  other  side,  thus  raising  a 
formidable  menace  of  rear-attack. 

A  modern  army-front  cannot  simply 
walk  away  from  its  position.  Hundreds 
of  huge  cannon  must  be  moved,  and  these 
are  as  heavy  as  industrial  machinery. 
Thousands  of  other  guns,  lighter,  but  still 
not  easily  moved,  must  be  saved  from 
possible  capture.  Hundreds  of  tons  of 
supplies  have  to  be  shifted.  For  this  rea- 
son a  threatened  army  cannot  wait  too 
long.  It  cannot  always  assure  itself  that 
the  breach  in  its  line  is  serious.  The 
only  absolute  safety  is  to  fall  back  and 
re-form  where  the  enemy  again  may  be 
faced  by  a  solid  and  unpenetrated  front. 


Q. — Is  it  possible  for  men  to  live 
through  a  bombardment  di- 
rectly on  the  trenches? 

A. — Yes.  The  trenches  are  deep  but 
narrow,  and  on  the  side  toward  the  enemy 
there  is  a  high  mound  of  earth  or  of 
sand-bags.  No  matter  how  accurate  ar- 
tillerists may  be,  it  is  impossible  to  aim 
so  accurately  that  the  shells  shall  actually 
fall  and  burst  inside  of  the  trenches. 
Most  of  them  hit  the  sheltering  mound  or 
drop  just  in  front  of  them.  The  ex- 
plosion of  these  shells  rarely  does  direct 
damage  to  the  men  in  the  trenches,  and 
the  greatest  danger  from  them  is  caused 
by  flying  fragments  of  the  bursting  shell. 

Another  proportion  of  shells  flies  over 
the  trench  and  bursts  just  beyond.  These 
are  more  dangerous  if  they  explode  close 
to  it,  because  the  rear  of  the  trench  is 
not  so  well  protected,  though  modern 
trenches  do  have  mounds  erected  against 
this  "back-fire." 

Even  if  shells  burst  in  the  trench,  how- 
ever, they  are  not  necessarily  fatal  to 
anybody,  because  of  the  bomb-proofs 
scattered  along  the  trenches  to  give  men 
shelter. 

In  addition,  as  the  trenches  are  not 
straight,  but  zig-zag,  a  shell  bursting  in- 
side of  a  trench  cannot  send  its  frag- 
ments through  more  than  a  limited  area. 

"Shell-shock"  is  the  thing  that,  prob- 
ably, puts  more  men  out  of  commission 
than  actual  wounding  or  killing. 


46 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  is  barrage  fire? 

A. — Literally  it  means  a  fire  to  bar  men. 
It  is  an  artillery  method  which  has  be- 
come possible  only  through  the  modern 
improvements  in  guns  and  time-fuse 
shells,  and  the  use  of  airplanes,  tele- 
phones and  wireless  to  keep  the  artiller- 
ists constantly  informed  as  to  the  effect  of 
their  work. 

When  it  is  decided  to  establish  a  bar- 
rage, a  line  of  guns  is  so  fired  as  to  drop 
an  incessant  shower  of  shells  along  a 
given  zone.  This  bursting  inferno,  which 
is  kept  up  for  as  many  minutes  or  hours 
as  may  be  demanded  by  the  particular 
operation,  is  a  barrage  through  which  no 
number  of  men  can  pass. 

Q. — How  is  barrage  used? 

A. — A  barrage  may  be  "laid  down"  be- 
hind an  enemy's  front  line,  thus  cutting 
that  front  line  off  from  re-enforcements, 
supplies,  etc.  This  is  done  by  so  drop- 
ping the  shells  that  they  explode  contin- 
ually along  every  communication  road 
and  on  every  depot  of  supplies.  When 
the  front  line  has  been  thus  cut  off,  a 
charge  by  a  superior  number  of  opponents 
may  result  in  the  destruction  or  capture 
of  all  the  isolated  men. 

Another  way  to  use  a  barrage  is  by 
"advancing"  it  gradually — that  is,  the  bar- 
rage first  falls  on  a  certain  part  of  the 
enemy  line,  and  the  attacking  troops  ad- 
vance just  behind  it.  The  guns  then  lay 
the  barrage  a  little  further  ahead,  and 
the  attacking  force  advances  again,  and 
so  on.  This  is  known  as  "creeping  bar- 
rage." 

Creeping  barrage  aims  to  demolish  first 
the  enemy  barbed-wire  entanglements ; 
then  the  enemy  trenches ;  then  the  com- 
municating trenches,  and  so  on,  thus 
clearing  the  way  for  the  attacking 
troops. 

If  an  attack  is  threatened  on  its  own 
trenches,  the  artillery  tries  to  lay  down  a 
defensive  barrage — that  is,  it  tries  to 
make  a  zone  of  explosive  fire  in  front  of 
its  own  trenches  to  prevent  the  assailants 
from  approaching,  and  if  the  attack  Is 
serious,  it  tries  to  lay  a  heavy  barrage 
behind  the  assailants,  for  the  double  pur- 
pose of  preventing  re-enforcements  and 
of  preventing  their  retreat,  thus  making 
possible  their  capture  or  destruction. 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  between 
a  defeat  and  a  rout? 

A. — A  defeat,  even  though  it  may  be 
of  the  utmost  gravity,  still  leaves  the  de- 
feated force  in  some  sort  of  coherent  or- 
ganization. It  may  not  be  able  to  fight 


again,  but  it  has  a  chance.  Even  if  it 
has  no  real  chance  left,  it  still  remains  a 
factor  to  be  reckoned  with.  Until  it  is 
eliminated,  the  enemy,  however  victori- 
ous, has  not  obtained  a  free  hand. 

A  rout,  on  the  other  hand,  is  not  only 
an  utter  defeat,  but  it  is  the  elimination 
of  the  defeated  force.  A  routed  force, 
big  or  little,  is  one  that  has  no  organiza- 
tion left.  It  has  disintegrated  into  indi- 
viduals who  are  fleeing  in  disordered  mul- 
titude, leaving  their  military  equipment  on 
the  field,  and  not  seeking  to  make  a  stand 
anywhere,  except  as  desperation  may 
drive  them. 

Q. — If  a  soldier  crawls  into  an  en- 
emy trench  to  spy,  and  is 
caught,  what  happens  to  him? 

A. — If  he  is  in  the  uniform  of  his  own 
army,  he  must  be  treated  like  any  other 
prisoner  of  war.  If  he  is  disguised  in 
any  way,  either  in  civilian  garb  or  the 
enemy  uniform,  he  is  subject  to  treatment 
as  a  spy. 

Q. — Could  raiders  not  get  into  a 
German  trench  with  machine 
guns  and  clean  it  out? 

A. — They  could  clean  out  only  a  small 
part,  because  all  trenches,  German  and 
Allied,  are  so  dug  that  there  are  no  very 
long  straight  stretches.  Every  little  while 
there  is  a  sharp  bend.  This  is  done  for 
the  very  purpose  of  preventing  such  an 
occurrence  as  an  "enfilading  fire,"  which 
is  the  technical  term  for  raking  a  military 
position. 

Q. — What  is  the  meaning  of 
"troops  in  reserve?" 

A. — In  battle  only  a  certain  proportion 
of  troops  are  engaged  on  each  side.  It  is 
one  of  the  purposes  of  each  commander 
to  tempt  or  force  his  opponent  to  throw 
in  all  his  men,  while  he  himself  holds  his 
own  men  "in  reserve" — that  is,  he  keeps  a 
great  force  of  men  safely  in  the  rear  with 
the  object  of  suddenly  hurling  in  these 
fresh,  unwearied,  unshaken  men  when 
the  men  of  the  other  side  are  tired  out. 

Q. — Why  would  it  not  be  better  to 
push  all  the  men  in  at  once  and 
thus  strike  a  crushing  blow  in 
the  very  beginning? 

A. — It  would  be  excellent,  if  it  could 
be  done.  Sometimes,  under  very  unusual 
circumstances,  a  military  genius  does  do 
it,  and  he  wins  a  great  victory.  But  it 


American  Army  in  France 


47 


cannot  often  be  done.  The  geography  of 
a  battle-front,  the  necessity  of  guarding 
innumerable  possible  points  of  attack  and 
so  on,  force  generals  to  bring  only  a  part 
of  an  army  into  actual  combat  at  first. 

But  there  is  another  big  reason  for  not 
throwing  in  all  available  men  at  once.  It 
is  the  same  reason  that  leads  a  prize- 
fighter not  to  put  all  his  strength  into 
the  first  few  rounds — the  fear  of  physical 
exhaustion.  Men  become  vastly  exhaust- 
ed in  battle.  They  must,  after  a  few 
hours,  get  relief  or  support.  It  has  hap- 
pened many  times  in  history  that  victori- 
ous troops  have  so  worn  themselves  out 
to  win,  that  in  the  end  they  were  foo 
tired  to  drive  the  victory  home,  and  so 
lost  its  fruits  because  no  reserves  were 
available. 

Q. — What  is  shell-shock? 

A. — Shell-shock  is  a  condition  of  tem- 
porary mental,  nervous  and  physical  col- 
lapse caused  by  an  explosion  occurring 
in  close  proximity  to  the  individual,  or  by 
a  prolonged  period  of  exposure  in  a  place 
where  there  is  very  heavy  and  incessant 
bursting-fire. 

The  most  usual  cases  of  shell-shock  are 
caused  by  one  big  explosion  very  close  ^to 
the  victim.  Paralysis,  mental  stupor,  in- 
tense sensitiveness  of  the  superficial 
nerves,  violent  pains  that  often  appear  to 
have  no  real  reason,  involuntary  muscular 
motions,  deafness,  sometimes  blindness 
and  dumbness — any  or  all  of  these  symp- 
toms may  be  observed  in  sufferers. 

The  condition  first  became  a  decidedly 
big  hospital-fact  in  the  present  war. 
Much  has  been  done  to  relieve  it,  but 
there  still  is  much  to  learn  about  it.  The 
chief  line  of  treatment  is  directed  toward 
cheering  the  mind  of  the  patient  and 
soothing  the  nervous  condition  or  build- 
ing it  up.  The  fortunate  fact  about  it 
appears  to  be  that  it  is  generally  tempo- 
rary. The  period  of  recovery,  however, 
may  be  very  long  indeed. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  soldiers  have 
liquor  given  to  them  before  go- 
ing over  the  top? 

A. — Our  men  apparently  are  not  to  have 
liquor  doled  out  to  them,  but  the  British 
practice  has  been  to  give  the  men  a  "tot" 
of  rum  (the  liquor  made  from  sugar- 
cane syrup)  before  going  into  any  diffi- 
cult action  and  also  after  unusual  ex- 
posure to  weather. 

The  French  are  very  liberal  with  wine, 
and,  in  fact,  French  soldiers  drink  it 
largely  in  place  of  water.  The  American 
army  management  has  not  laid  down  the 


principle  of  teetotalism  as  an  iron-clad 
law,  and  experience  will  no  doubt  be  the 
guide. 

Q. — Do  the  officers  go  into  the 
trenches  with  the  soldiers? 

A. — The  lieutenants  do  almost  always, 
to  a  number  sufficient  to  maintain  efficient 
command  of  the  company  or  the  detach- 
ment in  each  particular  trench  sector. 
The  non-commissioned  officers,  of  course, 
accompany  their  squads. 

JThe  captain  of  a  company  usually  is 
with  his  men  if  the  whole  company  oc- 
cupies a  particular  sector.  Otherwise  he 
may  remain  on  detached  duty  in  the  rear, 
or  he  may  occupy  a  bomb-proof  or  other 
station  in  the  trenches  or  behind  them 
where  he  can  maintain  uninterrupted  tele- 
phone communication  with  his  men. 

Q. — Are  the  men  in  the  trenches 
under  pretty  constant  gun-fire? 

A. — Sometimes  men  may  hold  trenches 
throughout  their  entire  tour  of  duty  with- 
out receiving  a  hostile  shot.  Many  times 
soldiers  hold  considerable  extents  of 
trenches  for  two  or  even  more  weeks  and 
experience  only  occasional  shelling.  It 
all  depends  on  the  conditions  of  war  at 
the  time.  Even  when  things  are  pretty 
active  along  the  entire  front  as  a  whole, 
there  will  be  sections  of  front  that  seem 
to  be  neglected. 

Q. — Do  the  men  in  the  trenches 
have  to  cook  their  own  food? 

A. — Sometimes.  In  extreme  cases 
•where  a  very  heavy  and  sustained  bom- 
bardment destroys  communications,  they 
have  to  fall  back  on  the  emergency  ra- 
tions which  each  modern  soldier  carries 
with  him. 

In  the  ordinary  course  of  the  trench- 
war,  however,  hot  meals  are  delivered 
with  notable  regularity.  The  field-kitch- 
ens behind  the  trenches  supply  the  food, 
and  it  is  carried  in  big  cans  through  com- 
munication trenches  to  the  men. 

Q. — Have  the  men  in  the  trenches 
no  cannon  with  which  to  de- 
fend themselves? 

A. — Cannon  would  be  of  no  possible 
use  in  trenches.  The  enemy  trenches  are 
so  close  to  ours  that  machine-gun  and 
rifle-fire  make  a  perfect  defense.  Even 
if  cannon  were  of  any  use  in  trenches, 
which  they  are  not,  it  would  be  mad- 
ness to  put  them  there,  because  any  drive 


48 


Questions  and  Answers 


that  succeeds  in  breaking  through  a  trench 
anywhere  would  thus  result  in  a  loss  of 
valuable  artillery. 

Modern  artillery  has  such  immense 
range  that  it  can  perfectly  defend  the 
trenches  from  situations  so  far  behind 
them  that  it  is  absolutely  out  of  danger 
of  capture  from  any  ordinary  attacks. 

Q. — What  is  the  trench-mortar? 

A. — This  is  a  weapon  produced  by  the 
modern  trench-warfare.  It  is  a  little 
mortar,  so  light  that  it  can  be  transported 
with  ease  by  a  couple  of  men ;  and  un- 
like other  gunnery  weapons  it  requires 
comparatively  little  science.  Practically 
speaking,  it  simply  supplements  the  hand- 
thrown  grenade — that  is,  it  throws  a  bomb 
into  the  enemy  trench  in  the  same  way 
in  which  a  man  would  toss  a  hand- 
grenade. 

Its  range  does  not  have  to  be  much 
greater  than  that  attained  by  a  hand- 
thrown  bomb,  for  it  is  used  solely  for 
trench-to-trench  war.  It  shoots  its  big 
oval  or  sausage-shaped  bomb  well  up  into 
the  air  with  a  muffled  boom,  and  the  pro- 
jectile describes  a  big  curve.  The  bomb 
is  fitted  with  a  time-fuse  as  a  rule,  but 
may  also  be  made  to  explode  on  impact. 

Q. — Do  aircraft  drop  many  bombs 
into  the  trenches? 

A. — Very  few.  The  anti-aircraft  guns 
force  airplanes  to  remain  as  high  as  from 
5,000  to  10,000  feet.  At  this  height  the 
trenches  are  only  like  a  thin  streak  to  the 
airman's  eye.  In  addition,  as  an  airplane 
can  never  stop  while  in  the  air,  but  must 
keep  moving  continuously  and  at  a  high 
speed,  it  is  practically  impossible  to  fix 
the  right  instant  for  dropping  a  bomb  so 
that  it  will  hit  any  specific  object  below. 

Therefore  trenches  are  rarely  badly 
bombed,  except  when  some  very  extraor- 
dinary circumstance  gives  a  plane  the 
chance  to  swoop  low  and  speed  along  the 
length  of  a  trench  for  a  sufficient  distance 
to  loose  bombs  with  some  degree  of  ac- 
curacy. 

Q. — Have  the  men  in  trenches  any 
shelter  against  the  weather? 

A. — Sometimes  the  trenches,  especially 
where  a  line  has  been  held  for  some  time, 
are  fitted  with  very  comfortable  under- 
ground dwellings  with  light  and  heat. 
But  men  soon  become  inured  to  outdoor 
exposure.  City  people,  softened  by  house- 
living,  do  not  realize  how  large  a  propor- 
tion of  every  population  spends  the  great 
part  of  its  life  in  exposure  to  all  kinds 


of  weather,  not  only  without  suffering, 
but  actually  with  much  better  health  than 
the  city-dwellers. 

Q. — How  do  soldiers  in  France  get 
water? 

A. — In  the  army  zone,  reservoirs  and 
hydrants  are  erected  near  camps,  bar- 
racks and  hospitals,  and  tank  stations 
spaced  along  the  roads  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  the  traveling  kitchens  and  mo- 
tor tank  wagons.  These  hold  1,000  gal- 
lons and  they  bring  water  to  the  fighting 
line,  where  it  is  removed  in  kegs  or  skins 
into  the  trenches. 

A  water  supply  is  also  obtained  from 
springs  and  properly  fitting  them  out  to 
avoid  contamination.  Wells  are  cleaned 
out,  disinfected  and  provided  with  a 
pumping  plant.  Many  new  wells  are 
driven,  and  where  a  large  supply  of  water 
is  required,  veritable  waterworks  have 
been  constructed,  with  pumping  machines 
and  pipe  lines  several  miles  in  length. 
The  water  supply  department  of  the 
French  Army  consists  of  3,500  men  and 
75  officers.  It  has  fitted  out  3,800  existing 
wells  and  sunk  2,000  new  ones.  The  total 
amount  of  piping  laid  amounts  to  200 
miles. 

Q. — What  is  the  exact  technical 
composition  of  a  "sector"? 

A. — Technically  it  is  that  part  of  the 
front  line  occupied  by  a  battalion.  The 
organization  of  a  sector  consists  of: 

(1)  Accessory  defenses  which  are  made 
to  arrest  and  retard  the  enemy  advancing 
under  fire  of  the  defense ; 

(2)  The  first  line  of  surveillance  occu- 
pied by  a  few  men  from  which  all  ground 
in  front  can  be  well  seen ; 

(3)  The    line    of    resistance    occupied 
strongly,  which  must  be  defended  what- 
ever happens ; 

(4)  Lines  of  support  which  are  strongly 
organized    centers,    defended    while   new 
lines   in   the  rear  are  being   formed ;   all 
are  connected  by  communication  trenches 
and  protected  by  barbed  wire. 

Q. — What  is  the  first  thing  men  do 
in  a  trench  if  they  see  enemies 
approaching  to  attack? 

A. — Soldiers  rarely  attack  a  trench-line 
that  way.  A  trench  usually  is  pounded  by 
artillery  first,  to  destroy  it  and  drive  its 
defenders  out,  or  so  stun  and  decimate, 
them  that  they  cannot  offer  resistance  to 
the  enemy  charge,  which  does  not  follow 
till  the  artillery  has  done  its  work. 

Against  a  charge  such  as  is  suggested 


American  Army  in  France 


49 


the  men  in  the  trenches  would  direct  a 
converging  fire  from  all  the  machine  guns 
in  their  line,  supplemented  by  "sheet- 
fire"  from  their  rifles,  all  discharged  as 
fast  as  the  defenders  can  shoot,  so  as  to 
make  a  zone  of  destruction  through 
which  assailants  cannot  pass. 

Meantime  they  will  have  telephoned  or 
telegraphed  to  their  headquarters  in  the 
rear,  and  the  officers  there  will  instantly 
order  heavy  fire  from  their  artillery  to 
sweep  the  front  of  the  threatened  trench 
sector. 

Q. — Is  No  Man's  Land  a  neutral 
zone? 

A. — It  is  just  the  reverse.  The  zone 
between  the  opposing  trenches  is  called 
No  Man's  Land  because  it  is  not  possible 
for  either  side  to  hold  it,  and  because  no 
man  may  venture  on  it  except  at  immi- 
nent risk  of  death.  It  is  over  this  No 
Man's  Land  that  the  daring  detachments 
from  both  sides  creep  out  at  night  to  make 
raids  on  the  enemy  lines,  or  to  gather 
information. 

Q. — Is  the  term  "Jam  Pot"  a  nick- 
name for  something  else? 

A. — In  the  very  early  stages  of  the  war 
it  was  a  nickname  only  in  a  partial  sense. 
The  British  troops,  being  unprepared  for 
hand  grenade  work,  while  the  Germans 
were  well  equipped  for  that  kind  of  war- 
fare, converted  jam  pots  and  similar 
things  into  emergency  grenades,  loading 
them  with  explosives  and  tossing  them 
into  German  trenches  with  lighted  fuses 
attached.  Now  that  the  Allies  are  well 
supplied  with  regular  grenades,  the  term 
remains  as  a  nickname  pure  and  simple. 

Q. — How    many    kinds    of    hand 
grenades  are  there? 

A. — So  many  that  apparently  only  a 
few  specialists  in  explosives  can  tell  off- 
hand how  many  varieties  are  being  used. 
They  are  all  similar,  however,  in  the  main 
principle :  that  is,  whatever  their  shape 
and  size  may  be,  they  are  high-explosive 
bombs  to  be  tossed  by  hand-power  into 
enemy  positions.  Some  are  thrown  like  a 
baseball.  Others  are  hurled  from  slings. 
Still  others  are  attached  to  sticks. 

The  most  simple  are  provided  with  a 
common  fuse  that  is  lit  by  the  soldier  just 
before  he  tosses  the  grenade.  The  more 
elaborate  ones  are  fitted  with  very  in- 
genious exploding  devices,  some  being  so- 
called  time-fuses,  others  being  contact 
devices. 

The  great  object  is  to  insure  explosion 


of  the  bomb  the  moment  it  gets  to  the 
"right  place."  Slow  fuses  often  enable 
the  enemy  to  snatch  a  bomb  when  it  ar- 
rives and  throw  it  back  at  the  men  who 
sent  it.  On  the  other  hand  a  fuse  that 
discharges  the  grenade  too  swiftly  may 
make  it  burst  "at  home." 

Q. — Does  the  term  "sapper"  mean 
anything  ? 

A. — It  means  literally  a  soldier  who 
saps — that  is,  drives  a  tunnel  or  a  trench 
toward  an  enemy  position.  Such  an  ap- 
proach by  digging  is  known  as  "sapping" 
and  the  trench  or  tunnel  is  called  a  "sap." 

Sappers,  miners  and  pioneers  are  among 
the  very  oldest  military  formations  of  the 
world.  They  were  important  parts  of 
armies  long  before  gunpowder  was  in- 
vented. The  Romans,  who  besieged  Car- 
thage in  the  days  of  Hamilcar  and  Han- 
nibal, used  sapping  extensively. 

The  modern  sapper  is  part  of  th$  en- 
gineer corps  of  the  army,  and  sappers  are 
employed  like  the  other  arms  of  that 
service  for  all  kinds  of  engineering  work, 
from  building  roads  and  bridges  to  driv- 
ing the  old-fashioned  tunnel  under  an 
enemy  fortification  and  blowing  it  up. 

Q. — Is  the  so-called  fire-trench  an 
advanced  trench? 

A. — No.  The  fire-trench  is  the  actual 
front  line  of  trenches  permanently  held 
by  the  regular  front-line  troops.  It  rep- 
resents the  true  and  actual  battle-front. 
It  is  called  "fire-trench"  to  distinguish  it 
from  the  many  subsidiary  trenches  of  a 
defense  system,  such  as  communication 
trenches,  lateral  trenches,  listening  post 
trenches,  etc. 

Q. — Are  listening  posts  inside  of 
the  trenches  or  outside? 

A. — Listening  posts  are  in  No  Man's 
Land  between  the  trenches.  They  are  in 
trenches  that  have  been  dug  out  toward 
the  enemy  trench,  and  they  are  as  near 
to  the  foe  as  the  conditions  permit.  They 
are  elaborately  surrounded  with  barbed 
wire,  and  are  used  mostly  at  night,  when 
a  soldier  creeps  into  the  post  and  listens 
for  any  sound  in  the  enemy  lines  that 
may  warn  him  of  an  intended  raid,  of  any 
movement  or  transfer  of  troops,  etc. 

Q. — Why  do  men  at  the  front  call 
an  unexploded  shell  a  "dud"? 

A. — "Dud"  is  a  slang  English  word, 
meaning  something  the  same  as  the 
American  slang-word  "dub."  It  was  a 


Questions  and  Answers 


natural  thing  to  apply  the  term  to  a  shell 
that  fails  to  explode  after  it  strikes. 

Q. — If  two  armies  not  quite  equal 
in  numbers  meet,  must  the 
smaller  one  always  take  the  de- 
fensive ? 

A. — If  the  armies  are  well  matched  in 
quality  and  in  natural  positions,  the 
smaller  one  must  take  the  defensive  al- 
most always,  but  not  always.  It  depends 
on  the  commanding  officers.  If  these  are 
well  matched,  the  larger  army  will  usually 
force  the  offense,  thus  leaving  nothing 
but  defense  to  the  smaller.  But  a  supe- 
rior general  often  assumes  a  successful 
offensive  with  a  smaller  army;  and,  vice 
versa,  an  inferior  general  will  prosecute 
an  offensive  with  his  larger  army  so  un- 
skilfully that  as  the  battle  develops  he 
will  find  himself  forced  into  the  de- 
fensive. 

Q. — What  would  be  the  military 
advantage  to  either  side  of  go- 
ing through  Switzerland? 

A. — If  it  were  not  for  the  fact  that 
Switzerland  is  prepared  to  defend  her 
neutrality  bloodily,  a  surprise  attack 
through  the  northwestern  corner  of 
Switzerland,  where  it  abuts  on  the  Ger- 
man and  French  lines,  might  be  of  ad- 
vantage, for  the  assailant  could  hope  to 
push  so  big  an  army  through  that  his 
enemy's  whole  front  would  have  to  fall 
back. 

Thus  German  forces  pouring  through 
that  corner  might  force  an  abandonment 
of  the  entire  Vosges  line  and  leave  the 
French  Verdun  line  critically  "in  the  air." 

A  French  invasion  of  Germany  through 
that  part  of  Switzerland  might  force  the 
Germans  to  abandon  all  of  Alsace. 

Considered  in  practical  detail,  however, 
such  an  attack  would  present  huge  diffi- 
culties to  either  side.  The  troops  and 
their  vast  lines  of  supplies  would  have 
only  very  narrow  mountain  valleys  to  pass 
through,  and  either  side  could  probably 
block  the  narrow  outlets. 

Q. — How  can  an  American  send 
gifts  to  soldiers  at  the  front? 

A. — By  parcel  post  or  express,  but  only 
if  sender  can  show  a  written  request  from 
the  soldier,  approved  by  his  commanding 
officer.  Tie  parcel  securely,  but  do  not 
seal,  as  it  must  be  inspected. 

The  sender's  name  and  address  should 
be  written  plainly  on  the  upper  left  hand 
corner. 


The  address  of  the  soldier  must  be  as 
follows : 

JOHN  SMITH, 

Company  C,  gth  Infantry, 

American     Expeditionary     Forces, 
France. 

The  exact  location  or  station  of  the 
company  must  not  be  given  on  the  ad- 
dress. 

Q. — Must  foreign  tariff  duty  be 
paid  on  gifts  sent  to  men 
abroad  ? 

A. — The  following  announcement  has 
been  received  through  the  State  Depart- 
ment of  the  conditions  whereby  gift  par- 
cels containing  dutiable  goods  sent  by 
parcel  post  may  be  delivered  free  of  duty 
in  Great  Britain,  when  intended  for  offi- 
cers and  men  of  the  U.  S.  Army  and 
Navy  serving  in  the  United  Kingdom,  for 
soldiers  of  American  nationality  serving 
in  the  British  or  Canadian  forces,  or  for 
American  medical  officers  serving  in  Brit- 
ish military  or  base  hospitals : 

"The  British  Board  of  Customs  an- 
nounce the  following  conditions  whereby 
gift  parcels  containing  dutiable  goods  may 
be  delivered  free  of  duty:  Such  parcels 
intended  for  officers  and  men  of  United 
States  Navy  in  United  Kingdom  should 
be  addressed  for  delivery  on  board  ship 
in  which  addressee  is  serving;  when  in- 
tended for  members  of  American  Army 
in  United  Kingdom,  should  be  addressed 
to  regimental  address  of  recipient;  when 
intended  for  soldiers  of  American  nation- 
ality in  British  or  Canadian  armies  or  for 
American  medical  officers  serving  in  Brit- 
ish military  or  base  hospitals,  should  be 
addressed  in  care  of  Committee  for 
American  Soldiers  and  Sailors  of  the 
American  Red  Cross,  154  New  Bond 
street,  London,  England,  which  committee 
will  verify  right  of  addressee  to  duty-free 
concession  and  arrange  for  delivery  of 
parcels.  Dutiable  goods  must  be  specific- 
ally described  as  tobacco,  cigarettes, 
chocolate,  etc.  Foregoing  relates  solely 
to  dutiable  goods  imported  by  parcels 
post." 

Q. — What  postage  must  our  men 
abroad  pay  on  mail  to  Amer- 
ica? 

A.— Under  an  Act  of  Oct.  3,  1917^  all 
troops,  sailors  and  marines  of  the  United 
States  serving  abroad  are  entitled  to  free 
postage  on  their  mail  back  to  the  United 
States  provided  that  this  mail  bears  the 
sender's  name,  etc.,  in  the  upper  left  hand 


American  Army  in  France 


corner  or  bears  other  evidence  to  indi- 
cate that  it  is  from  a  soldier  or  sailor. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  "tagging" 
a  soldier? 

A. — All  armies  engaged  in  the  war, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  the  Rus- 
sians, supply  their  men  with  identification 
tags,  generally  worn  on  a  string  passing 
around  the  neck.  Modern  warfare  is  so 
terrible  that  the  ordinary  means  of  iden- 
tification fail  completely,  and  if  it  were 
not  for  these  tags  families  would  be 
caused  untold  misery  because  of  inability 
to  learn  the  fate  of  their  loved  ones.  The 
British  soldier  is  provided  with  a  circular 
aluminum  tag  containing  his  draft  num- 
ber, name,  regiment  and  religion.  The 
French  are  using  a  metal  tag  made  in 
duplicate  and  capable  of  being  split.  This 
allows  one  half  of  the  tag  to  be  left  with 
the  dead  body  while  the  other  half  is 
forwarded  to  the  proper  authorities  for 
checking  purposes.  The  Germans  make 
use  of  a  similar  tag.  The  American  Navy 
has  a  tag  which  is  decidedly^  unique,  in 
that  it  carries  the  thumbprint  of  the 
bearer. 

Q. — What  is  the  cost  of  equipping 
an  American  infantryman? 

A.— The  War  Department  states  that  the 
cost  of  equipping  the  average  soldier  is 
$156.71.  Of  this  amount  $101.62  is  ex- 
pended for  clothing,  $7.73  for  eating  uten- 
sils, and  $47.36  for  fighting  equipment. 

Q. — What  are  the  food  require- 
ments of  a  large  army? 

A. — For  an  army  of  500,000  men  two 
and  a  half  million  pounds  of  food  must  be 
allowed  daily.  In  a  month  an  army  of 
this  size  will  use  thirteen  million  pounds 
of  beef,  fifteen  million  pounds  of  pota- 
toes, one  million  pounds  of  coffee  and 
three  million  pounds  of  sugar. 

Q. — Is  the  Government  employing 
women  telephone  operators  to 
go  abroad? 

A. — Women  telephone  operators  to  be 
sent  abroad  by  the  War  Department  will 
wear  a  distinctive  uniform  and  will  be 
considered  from  a  military  standpoint  as 
in  a  similar  position  to  the  members  of 
the  British  Women's  Auxiliary  Corps, 
according  to  information  given  out  by 
the  U.  S.  Signal  Corps.  Wives^  of  Army 
officers  and  enlisted  men  now  in  Europe 
or  about  to  go  will  not  be  accepted  for 
the  unit,  it  is  stated.  It  is  very  probable 
that  a  large  number  of  women  will  be  re- 


quired, as  General  Pershing  has  found  it 
impossible  to  obtain  satisfactory  opera- 
tors with  the  necessary  linguistic  require- 
ments. To  become  eligible  to  this  unit 
women  must  be  between  twenty-three  and 
thirty-five  years  of  age,  with  a  few  pos- 
sible exceptions  in  case  of  maximum  age. 
They  must  be  in  good  health,  and  speak 
both  French  and  English  with  ease.  It 
is  preferred  that  they  have  had  some  ex- 
perience in  telephone  switchboard  operat- 
ing, as  even  in  cases  of  experienced  op- 
erators it  has  been  found  necessary  to 
give  some  preliminary  training  in  this 
country  before  sending  them  abroad. 
Salaries  range  from  $60  to  $125  a  month, 
with  allowances  of  rations  and  quarters, 
the  same  as  now  accorded  to  Army 
nurses. 

Q.— What  is  meant  by  the  "Hin- 
denburg  Line"? 

A. — The  Hindenburg  Line  is  the  system 
of  German  entrenchments  on  the  western 
war  front,  so  called  after  the  commander 
of  the  'German  Field  Forces,  who  estab- 
lished it  after  the  Somme  fighting  in  1916. 
This  line,  the  defensive  against  which  the 
Allied  armies  are  battling,  consists  of 
three  main  sections,  the  northern  end  be- 
ing the  "Wotan"  line,  the  center  the 
"Siegfried"  line  and  the  southern  end 
the  "Albrecht"  line.  At  present  the  fine 
is  a  crescent  filling  toward  the  west,  with 
the  horns  at  the  North  Sea  on  the  north 
and  the  Aisne  River  on  the  south. 

Q. — Do  Allied  war  plans  call  for 
distinct  campaign  areas? 

A.— Yes.  The  Allied  front  is  divided 
into  three  sections,  a  British  front  from 
the  North  Sea  to  the  Oise  River,  a  dis- 
tance of  about  125  miles;  a  French  front 
from  the  Oise  to  Verdun,  some  150  miles  ; 
and  an  American  front  from  Verdun  to 
the  Swiss  frontier.  The  present  plans 
also  provide  for  an  independent  system  of 
railroads  from  behind  each  front  to  cer- 
tain selected  seaports,  making  three  dis- 
tinct lines  of  ^communication  from  the 
sea  to  the  firing  line.  The  American 
front  is  also  known  in  dispatches  as  the 
"Lorraine  Front." 

Q. — What  are  the  duties  of  a  com- 
pany clerk  when  his  company 
is  sent  to  France? 

A. — Ordinarily  a  company  clerk  would 
perform  his  duties  away  from  the  firing 
line.  The  exigencies  of  the  service, 
however,  especially  in  war  time,  demand 
many  departures  from  ordinary  rules  and 


Questions  and  Answers 


customs  and  a  company  clerk  going 
abroad  may  be  required  to  perform  duty 
anywhere. 

Q. — How  many  shoes  does  a  sol- 
dier need? 

A. — General  Pershing  has  requested 
shipment  of  18,590  pairs  of  shoes  for  each 
25,000  men  monthly,  which  is  approxi- 
mately nine  pairs  of  shoes  per  man  per 
year.  "This  quantity,"  said  Secretary 
Baker,  "is  in  excess  of  actual  consump- 
tion, and  is  being  used  by  General  Persh- 
ing to  build  up  a  reserve  for  all  troops  in 
France.  When  such  a  supply  is  accumu- 
lated, the  quantities  will  be  reduced." 

The  Quartermaster-General's  Depart- 
ment had  on  hand  before  the  end  of 
February,  1918,  and  due  on  outstanding 
contracts  7,564,000  field  shoes  and  7,873,- 
ooo  marching  shoes. 

Q. — Are  knitted  socks  and  helmets 
really  useful? 

A. — The  usefulness  of  both  socks  and 
helmets  is  assured  from  the  fact  that  the 
various  philanthropic  organizations  sup- 
plying such  articles  are  constantly  urged 
to  send  more. 

With  regard  to  the  knitted  socks,  it  is 
urged  that  an  added  supply  is  most  nec- 
essary for  our  soldiers  abroad  if  their 
feet  are  to  be  kept  in  good  condition. 
England  and  Canada  allot  a  pair  of  socks 
daily  to  each  of  their  soldiers,  while  the 
United^  States  Government  furnishes  its 
men  with  two  pairs  weekly. 

Q. — What  do  our  soldiers  like  best 
as  presents? 

A. — Soap,  knives,  ^ tobacco,  tobacco 
pouches,  key  rings,  pipes,  games,  espe- 
cially cards,  chewing  gum,  eating  choco- 
late, mouth  organs,  and  other  small  musi- 
cal instruments. 

Among  larger  gifts  are  rubber  pillows, 
rubber  overcoats,  warm  underclothing 
and  knitted  articles. 

Q. — What  extra  army  pay  is  al- 
lowed for  foreign  service? 

A. — Foreign  service  pay  is  twenty  per 
cent  of  the  pay  of  the  grade  without  the 
war  increase.  For  instance,  an  enlisted 
man  who  receives  $15  on  his  first  enlist- 
ment, if  serving  in  France,  will  receive  $3 
for  foreign  service  pay  and  $15  war  in- 
crease, a  total  of  $33. 


Q. — How  many  soldiers  voted  in 
the  first  election  under  arms? 

A. — In  the  election  of  November,  1917, 
the  entire  military  vote  (cast  by  recruits 
in  national  encampments  at  home,  citizen 
soldiers  in  France,  and  citizen  sailors  on 
naval  vessels)  was  50475. 

Q. — How  much  does  it  cost  to  feed 
a  soldier? 

A. — A  little  less  than  40  cents  a  day 
in  the  camps  in  the  United  States.  The 
figures  from  one  camp,  Camp  Devens  in 
Massachusetts,  show  that  when  the  men 
were  first  assembling  there  the  cost  for 
each  man  per  day  was  40%  cents.  In 
September,  1917,  when  the  supply  had 
been  organized  thoroughly  the  cost  was 
38%  cents. 

Q. — How  can  soldiers  in  France 
get  eyeglasses  if  they  break  the 
ones  they  have? 

A. — There  are  optical  units  with  the 
army.  A  base  plant  is  provided  with 
elaborate  optical  machinery  and  work- 
men, capable  of  turning  out  several  hun- 
dred pairs  of  glasses  a  day  with  all  the 
accuracy  of  an  optical  manufacturing  es- 
tablishment at  home.  Automobile  units 
will  work  immediately  behind  the  lines 
for  emergency  repairs,  fitting,  etc. 

Q. — How  many  soldiers  can  a  ship 
carry? 

A. — The  old  estimates  used  to  be  one 
man  to  every  two  tons  of  cargo  capacity. 
This  was  the  European  army  usage. 
There  has  been  some  dispute  in  America 
since  the  troops  began  to  go  over-seas, 
because  some  experts  hold  that  two  tons 
3s  not  a  sufficient  allowance  for  a  modern 
soldier  with  the  great  amount  of  equip- 
ment and  supply  that  must  accompany 
troops.  The  Secretary  of  War  adhered 
to  the  two-ton  calculation.  Others  as- 
serted that  the  amount  needed  for  each 
man  was  five  tons,  but  it  may  be  said  that 
this  is  extreme.  It  is  evident  that  some 
of  the  experts  who  hold  to  the  five-ton 
calculation  are  figuring  not  simply  on 
the  actual  transport  per  man,  but  also  on 
the  tonnage  needed  to  continue  sending 
supplies  after  the  man  has  landed  in 
France. 

Q. — Does  a  soldier's  outfit  actually 
weigh  two  tons  ? 

A. — Not  at  all.  "Tons"  means  space, 
not  weight.  This  "tonnage"  measurement 


American  Army  in  France 


53 


of  merchant  ships  really  was  not  invent- 
ed by  sailors  or  ship-builders.  It  was 
devised  by  tax-collectors.  In  the  days 
of  the  Stuarts  in  England  it  was  decided 
by  that  habitually  hard-up  government  to 
levy  port  taxes  and  dues  of  all  sorts  on 
shipping.  To  ascertain  what  each  vessel 
should  pay,  the  tax  collectors  devised  the 
scheme  of  taxing  each  according  to  the 
number  of  "tuns"  (great  hogsheads)  that 
it  could  carry.  These  tuns  probably 
were  selected  because  at  that  time  wine, 
tobacco,  and  many  other  cargoes  were 
carried  in  tuns.  Certain  measurements 
of  cargo  space  were  laid  down,  and,  ac- 
cording to  this  "tunnage"  the  ship  was 
taxed. 

Q. — What  are  corps  troops? 

A. — They  are  an  addition  to  the  army 
corps  devised  to  meet  the  necessities  of 
warfare  on  the  French  front.  When  the 
six-division  corps  was  organized,  this 
body  of  "corps  troops"  was  added.  Corps 
troops  are  made  up  of  artillery  units, 
engineers  and  many  other  types  of  serv- 
ice battalions,  and  their  duty  is  to  main- 
tain the  line  of  communication  for  their 
own  corps.  They  comprise  about  30,000 
men. 

Q. — What  is  a  line  of  communica- 
tion? 

A. — In  the  first  place,  you  must  under- 
stand that  it  is  a  "line"  only  technically. 
Actually  it  is  the  system  of  roads  and 
depots  situated  safely  behind  an  army, 
from  and  over  which  there  must  go  an. 
unending  stream  of  supplies  to  the  troops 
in  front.  An  American  field  army  in 
France  (which  would  consist  of  three 
army  corps)  must  have  from  125,000  to 
130,000  men  (corps  troops)  to  maintain 
all  the  avenues  of  supply.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  General  Pershing's  "lines  of  com- 
munication" extend  from  the  Lorraine 
trenches  clear  across  France  to  the  ports 
where  the  ocean  transport  service  lands 
the  supplies  from  America. 

Q. — Was  there  a  definite  plan  for 
American  artillery  at  the  front? 

A. — Yes.  Before  April,  1918,  a  very 
elaborate  plan  had  been  worked  out  on  a 
scale  that  was  said  to  exceed  anything 


ever  before  attempted  in  artillery.  There 
were  to  be  groups  of  mobile  howitzers 
with  6,  8,  10  and  12  inches  diameter,  and 
also  batteries  of  the  great  all-steel  rifled 
cannon  such  as  have  been  used  in  our 
coast  fortifications.  These  were  to  be  10- 
and  12-inch  guns.  It  was  also  hoped  at 
that  time  to  add  to  the  system  some  of 
the  newest  American  naval  rifled  cannon, 
the  i6-inch.  The  Navy  ordnance  works 
were  progressing  so  well  that  it  was 
thought  they  could  turn  out  more  of  these 
monsters  than  could  be  utilized  immedi- 
ately on  the  great  all-big-gun  ships  then 
building. 

Q. — Where  were  the  big  guns  to 
be? 

A. — Many  miles  behind  our  front  lines 
— so  far  behind  that  the  men  in  the 
trenches  could  not  see  them,  even  with 
glasses,  and  could  hear  their  firing  only 
as  something  far  away.  From  these  hid- 
den and  distant  positions  the  great  shells 
would  pass  high  over  the  soldiers'  heads, 
not  dropping  to  earth  till  they  reached 
the  German  positions. 

Q. — How  will  American  artillery 
be  repaired  in  France? 

A. — A  huge  artillery  base  was  started 
early  in  1918  to  cost  approximately  25 
million  dollars.  The  works  were  planned 
to  have  a  capacity  for  re-lining  more  than 
800  big  guns  a  month  (putting  in  new 
bores  and  rifling  to  replace  the  core  worn 
out  by  firing).  There  was  also  to  be  a 
works  for  repairing  50,000  small  arms 
and  machine  guns  a  month  with  a  re- 
loading plant  to  re-load  about  100,000  ar- 
tillery cartridges  a  day.  To  do  all  this 
(and  to  make  the  repairs  on  motor  ve- 
hicles and  the  other  equipment),  more 
than  a  hundred  buildings  were  necessary. 

Q. — Has  our  army  done  much  con- 
struction in  France? 

A. — We  made  one  complete  harbor. 
We  have  built  many  railroads.  There  is 
a  cold  storage  plant  at  an  American  cen- 
ter for  5,000  tons  of  beef.  There  is  a 
bakery  with  a  capacity  of  500,000  loaves 
a  day.  It  is  as  wonderful  as  a  big  pack- 
ing house.  Cars  of  flour  run  in  at  a  time, 


TROOP  TRANSPORT  OVER  SEAS 


Q. — Did  American  troops  go  to 
Europe  immediately  after  war 
was  declared? 

A. — The  first  American  force  was  sent 
within  a  few  months  after  the  American 
Declaration  of  War,  which  was  made 
April  6,  1917. 

Q. — Were  the  first  troops  sent  in 
warships? 

A. — No.  They  were  sent  in  merchant 
vessels  fitted  out  as  transports,  and  armed 
only  lightly  with  a  few  light,  quick-firing 
naval  guns,  firing  5-  and  6-inch  shells. 

Q. — How  can  such  transports  de- 
fend themselves? 

A. — They  are  expected  to  defend  them- 
selves only  in  a  pinch.  They  are  pro- 
tected by  warships. 

Q. — Why  could  not  troops  be  sent 
in  battleships? 

A. — Because  there  is  not  enough  room 
on  warships  to  carry  any  considerable 
number  of  soldiers.  In  addition,  the 
function  of  a  warship  is  to  seek  for  and 
meet  an  enemy,  whereas  the  function  of 
a  transport  is  to  avoid  him. 

Q. — How  do  warships  defend 
transports  ? 

A. — Warships  defend  transports  against 
the  attack  of  enemy  warships  by  convoy- 
ing them.  To  do  this,  the  transports, 
steaming  in  line  or  in  double  line,  are 
surrounded  by  cordons  of  warships  of 
different  types. 

Far  in  advance,  and  sweeping  the  ocean 
on  both  sides,  sometimes  as  far  as  three 
hundred  miles  away,  are  the  swift  scout 
cruisers,  whose  mission  it  is  to  find  the 
enemy  and  wireless  the  warning  to  their 
own  ships. 

Surrounding  the  transports  and  keep- 
ing them  always  in  sight,  are  the  heaviest 
ships,  the  battle-bruisers  and  dread- 
naughts.  It  is  their  business  to  meet  an 
attacking  foe  at  such  a  distance  from  the 
transports,  that  he  cannot  come  within 
range  of  them.  Forming  separate  cor- 
dons are  swift,  light  cruisers  and  de- 
stroyers— some  ranging  far  over  the  seas 
to  scout,  others  staying  close  to  the  trans- 
ports to  protect  them  against  destroyer 


attack,  which  is  particularly  to  be  feared 
at  night. 

Q. — Has  not  the  submarine  changed 
the  convoy  system? 

A. — Yes.  The  fact  that  the  big  ships 
of  the  German  Navy  cannot  take  the  sea 
is  what  has  made  cordons  of  cruisers  and 
battleships  unnecessary  for  our  trans- 
ports. Against  submarines  alone  these 
big  vessels  are  not  needed,  and,  indeed, 
would  be  useless. 

As  the  only  menace  to  our  transports 
comes  from  submarines,  the  convoying 
vessels  may  consist  wholly  of  destroyers, 
whose  greatest  value  is  their  speed.  Ow- 
ing to  this  speed,  a  limited  number  of 
destroyers  can  establish  a  very  intensi- 
fied patrol  around  quite  a  large  fleet  of 
transports. 

As  they  have  speeds  ranging  from  28 
to  36  miles  (statute)  an  hour,  it  is  cal- 
culable that  a  submarine  showing  its  peri- 
scope exactly  between  two  destroyers  five 
miles  apart,  would  have  both  of  them 
down  on  it  in  exactly  five  minutes,  if  they 
were  thirty-mile  boats. 

Q. — How  can  destroyers  find  sub- 
marines ? 

A. — Only  by  continual  cruising  and 
watching.  There  are  only  two  factors 
that  are  really  in  the  destroyers'  favor. 
One  is  that  the  submarine  naturally  tries 
to  lie  on  the  surface  (for  resting  its  men, 
replenishing  its  air-supply,  and  re-charg- 
ing its  electric  motors)  whenever  the 
commander  thinks  it  safe.  The  other  fac- 
tor is  that  a  submarine  absolutely  cannot 
attack  a  vessel  without,  at  least,  getting 
a  glimpse  of  it  from  the  surface.  That 
means  that  the  submarine  must  show  its 
periscope,  and,  furthermore,  must  leave 
a  noticeable  wake  as  it  moves  along  close 
under  the  surface. 

Q. — What  is  the  periscope? 

A. — It  is,  in  effect,  a  great  eye  at  the 
top  of  a  mast-like  tube,  about  5  inches  in 
diameter.  This  eye  is  a  very  powerful 
lens,  and  when  the  periscope  tube  has 
emerged  from  the  water,  the  watchers  in 
the  still  submerged  submarine  see  a  re- 
flected image  of  any  vessels  within  the 
range  of  sight.  The  powerful  lens  at 
the  top  is  so  made  that  it  gets  a  maxi- 
mum amount  of  view.  The  observer  in 


54 


Troop  Transport  Over  Seas 


55 


the  submarine  can  turn  it  in  all  direc- 
tions. The  most  modern  submarines  have 
a  very  wonderful  "all-around"  periscope, 
which  reflects  a  view  of  the  whole  en- 
circling water-world  in  all  directions.  An 
elaborate  system  of  lenses  within  the  tube 
reflect  this  image  into  the  observation 
room  of  the  submarine. 

Q. — Is   not  the  periscope  a  very 
small  object? 

A. — Very  small,  and  its  visibility  to 
others  varies  according  to  conditions.  In 
a  very  smooth  sea  it  sometimes  shows  up 
with  surprising  distinctness.  In  rough 
water,  or  when  the  sun  happens  to  be 
wrong,  it  is  very  hard  to  see,  being  only 
about  5  inches  in  diameter. 

Q. — Is  there  no  other  way  to  de- 
tect a  submarine? 

A. — Yes.  When  a  submerged  sub- 
marine has  come  so  close  to  the  surface 
that  it  can  protrude  its  periscope,  it 
creates  a  noticeable  commotion  on  the  top 
of  the  water.  The  periscope  tube  in  it- 
self makes  a  wake,  and  a  bigger  disturb- 
ance still  is  caused  by  the  movement  of 
the  large  hull  under  the  surface. 

Q. — Can  the  submarine  lie  still  and 
await  its  prey? 

A. — No.  A  submarine  that  has  been 
brought  near  the  surface  to  make  an  at- 
tack, cannot  lie  still  in  that  position.  It 
must  keep  moving,  if  it  is  to  retain  its 
level.  To  lie  motionless,  a  submarine 
must  either  come  wholly  to  the  surface 
or  it  must  so  fill  its  ballast  tanks  as  to 
sink.  If  a  submarine  with  periscope  pro- 
truding were  to  stop  its  propeller,  which, 
with  its  balancing  fins,  keeps  it  in  a  de- 
sired depth,  it  would  bob  up  like  a  cork 
and  be  a  big  mark.  A  submarine,  even 
when  submerged,  never  has  so  much  water 
ballast  aboard  as  to  destroy  its  buoyancy. 
It  must  retain  its  tendency  to  float  to  the 
surface,  otherwise  it  would  be  bound  to 
sink. 

Q. — How    long    is    the    periscope 
tube? 

A. — From  18  to  20  feet  in  the  average 
submarine.  The  submarine  thus  can  sight 
a  ship  while  it  still  is  that  far  below  the 
surface.  • 

Q. — Does  the  submarine  sink  if  its 
tube  is  shot  away? 

A. — No.  The  only  effect  is  to  make  it 
"blind" — that  is,  without  a  periscope  the 


crew  of  the  submarine  would  have  to 
bring  their  craft  to  the  surface  so  that 
they  could  see  through  the  glass-win- 
dowed conning-tower  if  they  wanted  to 
attack  ships.  But  the  loss  of  the  peri- 
scope does  not  prevent  them  from  navi- 
gating under  water  and  they  can,  there- 
fore, run  away  submerged  until  they  get 
clear  of  an  enemy  zone.  After  that  they 
can  run  on  the  surface  when  no  foe  is 
near,  and  so  get  home.  But  they  can 
do  no  more  torpedoing  from  submerged 
position.  Thus,  though  they  can  still 
manage  to  get  back  to  port,  their  capac- 
ity for  harm  would  be  gone. 

Q. — Why  not  simply  shoot  away 
their  periscopes  and  thus  make 
them  harmless? 

A. — That  is  one  of  the  various  things 
the  submarine-hunters  try  to  do.  But  it 
is  very  difficult.  It  cannot  be  done  ex- 
cept now  and  then  by  lucky  chance.  The 
mark  is  too  small.  Besides,  as  we  know 
now,  the  submarines  have  mechanics  who 
can  make  remarkable  repairs.  Besides, 
modern  submarines  have  spare  periscopes. 
Every  submarine  nowadays  has  at  least 
two,  and  it  is  understood  that  the  very 
latest  German  submarines  have  more. 

Q. — When  the  periscope  protrudes, 
will  exploding  shells  sink  the 
submarine? 

A. — Twenty  feet  of  water,  or  much  less, 
make  a  powerful  cushion  against  explo- 
sion. While  a  good  part  of  the  shock  is 
transmitted  through  the  water,  a  greater 
part  of  the  explosive  violence  goes  in 
the  lines  of  least  resistance ;  that  is,  the 
air.  In  addition,  there  is  the  immense  dif- 
ficulty of  hitting  exactly  that  part  of  the 
water  under  which  the  submarine  is  mov- 
ing. There  comes,  too,  the  fact  that 
shells  impinge  on  the  sea  at  an  angle, 
and  this  makes  many  of  them  "ricochet" 
— that  is,  they  bound,  much  as  a  tennis 
ball  does. 

Q. — What  do  the  soldiers  on  a 
transport  do  when  a  torpedo 
hits? 

A. — The  soldiers  are,  of  course,  drilled 
every  day  in  putting  on  the  life  preserv- 
ers, and  hastening  to  the  lifeboats,  which 
generally  hold  about  48  men  each.  Each 
man  goes  to  a  particular  boat  and  sits  in 
a  certain  seat.  The  signal  to  take  to  the 
boats  is  five  short  blasts  on  the  ship's 
whistle.  Each  lifeboat  is  in  command  of 


Questions  and  Answers 


an  officer,  who  has  a  loaded  revolver,  to 
make  sure  of  order  and  absolute  silence. 

Q. — What  happens  when  the  ex- 
plosive shell  strikes  the  water? 

A. — A  great  deal  depends  upon  the 
shape  of  the  shell  and  the  angle  at  which 
it  strikes.  The  shells  in  general  use  have 
been  inclined  to  bound  from  the  water 
into  the  air,  especially  when  the  water  has 
been  smooth,  and  the  shells  struck  the 
water  at  an  angle  of  less  than  10  de- 
grees. Sometimes  these  shells  have  trav- 
eled for  a  straight  mile  after  bounding 
before  striking  the  water  again.  A  shell 
designed  to  overcome  this  tendency,  and 
known  as  a  diving  shell,  has  been  devised 
by  American  naval  engineers. 

Q. — How  long  does  it  take  a  ship 
to  make  a  round-trip  to  France? 

A. — It  ought  to  take  big,  modern  ships, 
such  as  the  requisitioned  German  Voter- 
land  and  others,  only  about  three  weeks 
to  take  a  load  of  men  and  supplies  to 
France  and  get  back  to  an  American  port. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  con- 
gestion is  so  great  that  it  takes  ^50  or  60 
days  to  make  a  round  trip.  Aside  from 
the  frightful  congestion  which  protracts 
the  time  for  coaling  and  loading,  the 
faster  ships  are  held  down  in  speed  by 
the  necessity  of  taking  the  rate  of  speed 
on  a  given  trip  that  the  whole  convoy 
must  adopt,  which  is,  of  course,  the  speed 
of  the  slowest  ship  in  it. 

Q. — What  is  a  depth-bomb? 

A. — It  is  the  best  device  so  far  found 
for  fighting  the  submarine.  Depth-bombs 
are  bombs  loaded  with  200  or  300  pounds 
of  very  high  explosive,  generally  trinitro- 
toluol. They  are  carried  in  a  special  ap- 
paratus at  the  stern  of  ships  that  hunt 
submarines,  and  they  are  so  adjusted  that 
they  can  be  dropped  into  the  sea  instantly 
by  pulling  a  lever. 

Q. — How  are  they  used? 

A. — When  a  destroyer  or  other  sub- 
marine-hunting vessel  sights  a  periscope, 
it  races  toward  the  spot  at  full  speed, 
generally  firing  as  it  goes.  While  the 
submarine  generally  manages  to  submerge 
before  the  patrol-ship  can  reach  it,  there 
is  almost  always  a  surface  disturbance, 
due  to  the  motion  of  the  under-water 
craft.  If  the  patrol  vessel  can  reach  the 
spot  in  reasonably  good  time,  there  is  a 


fair  chance  to  ascertain  with  some  degree 
of  accuracy  where  the  submarine  is.  The 
bombs  are  dropped  then,  and  they  ex- 
plode under  water. 

Q. — Suppose  the  depth-bomb  does 
not  hit  the  submarine? 

A. — It  will  explode  anyway.  Depth- 
bombs  are  provided  with  an  appliance 
that  is  set  to  go  off  automatically  at  any 
desired  depth.  As  the  force  of  the  ex- 
plosion under  water  is  enormous,  a  sub- 
marine may  be  damaged  sufficiently  to 
sink _  it  if  the  bomb  explodes  anywhere 
within  one  hundred  feet  of  it. 

Q. — What  is  a  smoke-box? 

A. — It  is  a  box  pierced  with  holes  and 
filled  with  chemicals.  When  it  is  desired 
to  screen  a  vessel  from  a  submarine,  the 
box  is  thrown  overboard.  Water  rushes 
in  and  the  chemicals  immediately  produce 
a  dense  smoke,  which  hides  the  ship  ex- 
actly as  if  it  had  entered  a  fog  bank. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  the  British  lost 
hardly  any  soldiers  at  sea  dur- 
ing the  war? 

A. — They  had  astoundingly  few  losses. 
At  the  end  of  January,  1918,  it  was  an- 
nounced in  England  on  the  authority  of  a 
naval  authority  (un-named)  that  since  the 
beginning  of  the  war  only  9  British  trans- 
ports had  been  sunk,  and  that  the  total 
loss  of  life  was  only  2,000.  In  that  time 
11,000,000  soldiers  had  been  transported 
for  greater  or  shorter  distances.  The 
bulk  of  this  huge  transportation  figure, 
of  course,  is  produced  by  the  troops  that 
were  moved  back  and  forth  across  the 
English  Channel. 

Q. — What  does  the  distress  signal 
S.O.S.  mean? 

A. — It  has  no  particular  origin  or  mean- 
ing, but,  being  the  most  easily  distin- 
guished combination  which  can  be  sent 
out  by  the  wireless  operator — three  dots, 
three  dashes,  three  dots — it  was  adopted 
as  a  distress  signal,  displacing  the  for- 
mer combination  of  C.Q.D.  S.O.S.  hav- 
ing been  adopted,  it  was  natural  that 
words  should  be  fitted  to  it,  and  it  is  now 
generally  assumed  that  the  signal  means 
"Save  our  Souls."  But  it  does  so  no  more 
than  O.K.  stands  for  "all  correct,"  as  was 
alleged  in  an  entirely  invented  anecdote 
that  declared  that  a  Northern  General  in 
the  Civil  War  wrote  it  "Oil  Korrect." 


MAN  UNDER  WATER 
(The  Submarine) 


Q. — Who   invented   the  first  sub- 
marine ? 

A. — So  far  as  is  known  the  first  sub- 
marine was  built  by  an  American  named 
Bushnell,  in  1775.  It  was  a  one-man  af- 
fair, manually  propelled,  and  was  just 
large  enough  to  hold  the  navigator.  It 
was  built  of  wood,  and  was  submerged  by 
admitting  water,  which  was  pumped  out 
when  the  occupant  desired  to  come  to  the 
surface  again.  The  air  in  the  boat 
would  support  life  for  thirty  minutes. 
Bushnell  used  his  boat  during  the  Ameri- 
can War  of  Independence,  and  tried  to 
attach  a  bomb  to  the  bottom  of  the  Brit- 
ish warship  Eagle.  It,  however,  failed 
to  explode.  Fulton,  also  an  American, 
and  the  originator  of  the  steamboat,  de- 
voted some  time  to  submarine  boats.  He 
used  manual  propulsion,  but,  by  making 
use  of  compressed  air,  he  was  able  to  stay 
beneath  the  water  for  four  hours.  Di- 
rectly encouraged  by  Napoleon,  he  built 
a  boat  for  France  in  1801. 

Q. — Did  Americans  ever  use  sub- 
marines in  war? 

A. — Many  submarines,  all  manually  pro- 
pelled, were  built  during  the  American 
Civil  War,  but  Holland,  in  1877,  was  the 
first  to  build  a  really  efficient  submarine, 
mechanically  propelled.  He,  too,  was  an. 
American,  so  that  we  can  truthfully  say 
that  the  submarine  was  an  American  in- 
vention. The  French  did  more  to  develop 
the  craft  than  any  other  people,  but  the 
original  idea  was  not  theirs.  The  inter- 
nal combustion  engine  made  the  subma- 
rine possible,  just  as  it  made  possible  the 
aeroplane  and  Zeppelin. 

Q. — How    big    are    English    sub- 
marines ? 

A. — The  latest  pre-war  British  type,  the 
F  class,  of  which  there  were  eight  built, 
or  building,  in  1914,  has  a  displacement 
of  1,200  tons,  5,000  horsepower,  a  surface 
speed  of  20  knots,  and  a  submerged  speed 
of  12  knots.  They  have  six  torpedo  tubes-, 
and  two  quick-firing  guns.  The  AEi  and 
AE2,  which  were  lost,  were  800  tons,  and 
had  engines  of  1,750  horsepower,  which 
gave  them  a  surface  speed  of  16  knots. 
Submerged,  they  could  do  10  knots.  They 
had  four  torpedo  tubes  and  two  quick- 


firers.  They  were  176  feet  long  and  23 
feet  diameter.  The  latest  French  vessels, 
though  smaller  than  the  huge  Fs,  have 
almost  all  eight  torpedo  tubes.  Particu- 
lars_  of  the  German  submarines  are  not 
available,  but  they  are,  at  least,  as  large 
and  as  powerful  as  our  own. 

Q. — What  crew  does  a  submarine 
carry? 

A. — The  original  A  type  carried  a  crew 
of  eleven.  The  AEi  carried  35;  the  Fs 
have  from  40  to  50. 

Q. — What  is  a  submarine  built  of? 

A.— She  is  made  of  steel.  The  latest 
have  two  skins,  as  well  as  watertight  com- 
partments. They  are  fitted  with  wireless, 
and  are  driven,  when  on  the  surface,  by 
Diesel  engines,  using  heavy  oil. 

Q. — What    is    the    motive    power 
when  submerged? 

A. — Electricity.  This  means  that  heavy 
storage  batteries  must  be  carried.  Before 
the  Diesel  engine  was  used,  submarines 
had  to  rely  upon  internal  combustion  pet- 
rol engines. 

Q. — What  is  the  Diesel  engine? 

A. — It  is  the  most  successful  type  of 
internal  combustion  engine  using  heavy 
oil.  It  can  be  driven  with  ordinary  pe- 
troleum, and  does  not  require  the  highly 
explosive  oils  used  in  motor  car  and  aero- 
plane engines.  The  main  difference  be- 
tween this  engine  and  other  heavy-oil  en- 
gines which  preceded  it,  is  in  the  fact  that 
no  external  combustion  is  applied,  and 
no  actual  explosion  takes  place.  It  has 
to  operate  at  much  higher  pressure  than 
any  other  internal  combustion  engines, 
and  this  caused  some  alarming  accidents 
in  the  early  days  of  its  use.  The  present 
machines  are  safe  and  easy  to  operate. 
Owing  to_  the  perfect  combustion  of  the 
oil  there  is  hardly  any  dirt  or  smell,  and 
very  little  waste  of  power.  Less  than 
one-half  pint  of  crude  oil  gives  one  brake 
horsepower.  It  is  the  invention  of  a  Ger- 
man, Otto  Diesel,  who  committed  suicide, 
under  peculiar  circumstances,  and  it 
has  been  greatly  improved  during  the 
war.  It  is  used  in  the  German  sub- 
marines. Diesels  are  already  consider- 


Questions  and  Answers 


ably  used  in  auxiliary  sailing  ships,  and 
several  very  successful  Diesel  motor 
ships  have  made  voyages  as  long  as  5,000 
miles. 

Q. — What  is  the  very  latest  Ger- 
man submarine  like? 

A. — Rear-Admiral  Degouy,  of  the 
French  Navy,  who  is  one  of  the  leading 
naval  experts  of  ^  the  world,  gave  some 
account  of  them  in  the  Revue  des  Deux 
Mondes,  published  in  Paris.  He  said 
that  there  is  a  submersible  armed  with  a 
veritable  "armored  battery,"  constructed 
over  a  nearly  cylindrical  shell.  "This 
battery,  provided  with  a  number  (as  yet 
unascertained)  of  guns  of  120 — perhaps 
even  of  150 — millimeters  (5  or  6  in.) — 
would  be  flush  with  the  surface  of  the 
sea,  and  the  part  of  the  shell  unprotected 
with  armor  would  be  covered  by  the 
water.  All  that  would  be  necessary  would 
be  to  defend  that  portion  of  the  subma- 
rine above  the  water  against  the  weak 
guns  of  merchantmen  armed  for  de- 
fense. ...  I  shall  speak  now  of  the  2,000- 
ton  submarine,  which  certainly  has  been 
put  in  service,  probably  at  the  same  time 
as  the  commercial  submarine  Deutschland, 
whose  tonnage  is  no  less.  Judging  from 
the  characteristics  which  are  attributed  to 
this  new  craft,  it  will  readily^  be  seen  that 
we  have  here  a  deep-sea  cruiser  most  ac- 
ceptable for  operating  along  the  Allies' 
lines  of  communication  with  America. 
These  are  the  details:  Length,  85  meters 
over  all ;  four  Diesel  motors  of  7,000 
horsepower;  speed  of  22  knots  (14  when 
submerged)  ;  ability  to  ^cover  6,500  sea 
miles  on  the  surface  (in  other  words, 
twice  the  distance  across  the  Atlantic)  ; 
capacity  for  fresh  water  and  provisions 
enough  to  last  six  or  eight  weeks ;  arma- 
ment consisting  of  8  torpedo  tubes  for 
sixteen  55-centimeter  torpedoes,  50  auto- 
matic mines,  4  medium-sized  guns  (per- 
haps of  150  millimeters,  perhaps  of  120), 
adapted  for  firing  against  aircraft ;  upper 
bridge  lightly  armoured;  two  boats;  fifty 
men  in  the  crew,  together  with  five  of- 
ficers, including  two  mechanicians." 

Q. — Have  we  anything  like  the 
same  number  of  submarines  as 
Germany? 

A. — We  have  not,  and,  in  this  war  we 
do  not  need  them.  The  German  object  in 
submarine  warfare  is  destruction  of  mer- 
chant tonnage,  and  for  this  purpose  they 
need  as  big  a  fleet  of  under-water  boats 
as  they  can  possibly  turn  out.  Amerfca 
and  the  Allies  have  for  their  strategic 
object  the  destruction  of  enemy  warships 


and  nothing  else,  because  there  are  no 
enemy  merchant  ships  on  the  sea. 

Submarines  are  of  only  limited  value 
for  fighting  other  submarines, '  and  the 
•work  can  be  done  far  better  by  destroy- 
ers. Therefore,  the  American  Navy  can 
limit  its  submarine  fleet  to  the  numbers 
actually  desirable  for  operations  against 
warships.  However,  we  have  a  decidedly 
imposing  fleet.  It  numbered  more  than 
75  in  1917  before  war  began,  and  it  has 
been  heavily  increased. 

Q. — Have  we  more  than  one  kind 
of  submarine? 

A. — Yes.  We  have  two  kinds — the 
smaller  submarine,  known  as  coast  defense 
submarine,  and  the  larger  sea-going  kind, 
which  is  known  as  fleet  submarine,  because 
it  is  designed  to  accompany  a  fleet  in  sea 
operations. 

Q. — Are  any  American  submarines 
equal  to  the  biggest  German 
ones? 

A. — We  have  applied  the  lessons  learned 
during  the  war,  but  the  details  are  natur- 
ally not  things  to  publish,  though  most 
naval  students  know  pretty  well  what  the 
United  States  is  accomplishing.  Before 
the  war  began  we  had  already  started  the 
construction  of  many  under-water  ves- 
sels, which  were  twice  the  size  of  any- 
thing that  ever  had  existed  in  American 
fleets  before  then. 

These  big  fleet  submarines  were  almost 
300  feet  long,  and  they  were  of  1,000  to 
1,200  tons  and  more,  practically  equalling 
in  tonnage  some  of  our  modern  destroy- 
ers. They  were  designed  to  carry  enough 
fuel  (oil)  to  go  from  6,000  to  7,000  miles 
on  the  surface  and  3,000  miles  submerged, 
with  speed  close  to  20  knots  (22%  statute 
miles)  on  the  surface  (by  oil-driven 
motor),  and  12  to  14  knots  under  the  sur- 
face (by  electric  motor). 

They  were  armored,  carried  batteries 
of  at  least  three  4-inch  rifled  cannon,  and 
had  ten  torpedo  tubes. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  submarine 
exploit  of  the  war? 

A. — A  German  submarine  made  its  way 
into  the  sea-region  of  the  Firth  of  Forth 
on  the  Scottish  North  Sea  coast  and  suc- 
ceeded in  torpedoing  and  sinking  the 
British  light  cruiser  Pathfinder.  This  was 
on  September  5,  1914,  a  month  and  a  day 
after  the  declaration  of  war  between 
Great  Britain  and  Germany.  The  Path- 
finder was  not  a  large  ship,  being  of  only 
2,940  tons ;  therefore,  its  loss  was  not  ira- 


Man  Under  Water  (The  Submarine) 


59 


portant  as  importance  goes  in  war.  But 
the  demonstration  of  the  actual  ability  of 
the  submarine  to  do  what  it  had  been 
designed  to  do,  was  of  considerable  value 
to  the  Germans,  because  it  immediately 
led  the  British  ships  to  exercise  caution 
that  somewhat  limited  their  power  for 
dashing  offensives. 

Q. — What  was  the  most  striking 
submarine  feat? 

A. — Probably  the  most  spectacular 
proof  of  the  fighting  powers  of  the  sub- 
marine was  furnished  in  the  torpedoing 
of  three  big  British  cruisers  by  one  sub- 
marine, which  attacked  and  destroyed 
them  in  turn. 

The  British  ships  were  all  of  the  same 
type — armored  cruisers  of  12,000  tons 
each.  Their  names  were  Aboukir,  Cressy, 
and  Hogue  (names  commemorating  three 
famous  British  victories).  They  were  op- 
erating toward  the  German  North  Sea 
base  of  Kiel  on  September  22,  1914,  when 
the  German  U-29  struck  one  with  a  tor- 
pedo. The  others  tried  to  stand  by,  and 
were  torpedoed  in  swift  succession  and 
sunk. 

Q. — Did  any  British  submarines 
perform  notable  exploits? 

A. — The  British  submarine  E-g  got  al- 
most under  the  guns  of  Heligoland  Sep- 
tember 13,  1914,  and  torpedoed  the  Ger- 
man light  cruiser  Held  (2,000  tons)  prac- 
tically in  the  fortress  zone.  But  the  most 
notable  exploit  (and  probably  the  most 
brilliant  submarine  exploit  ever  per- 
formed) was  the  exploit  of  the  British 
B-n  which,  on  December  n,  1914,  made 
its  way  into  the  Dardanelles,  passing 
under  five  rows  of  mines !  This  daring 
submarine  deed  resulted  in  the  torpedo- 
ing of  the  Turkish  battleship  Messoudieft, 
10,000  tons,  actually  inside  of  the  land 
and  sea  defenses  of  Turkey. 

Q. — How  many  battleships  did 
submarines  sink  during  the 
war? 

A. — Up  to  the  beginning  of  1918,  the 
battleships  listed  as  submarine  losses 
were:  Formidable,  15,000  tons,  torpedoed 
January  I,  1915,  in  the  North  Sea;  Go- 
liath, 13,000  tons,  sunk  May  12,  1915, 
Dardanelles ;  Triumph,  12,000  tons,  sunk 
May  25,  1915,  in  Dardanelles;  Majestic, 
15,000  tons,  sunk  May  27,  1915,  in  Dar- 
danelles ;  Cornwallis,  14,000  tons,  sunk 
September  i,  1917,  in  Mediterranean. 


These  were  the  British  losses,  and  do 
not  count  in  such  losses  as  the  Audacious, 
which  was  sunk  mysteriously,  but  prob- 
ably not  by  a  submarine. 

The  French  have  lost  the  battleship 
Bouvet,  12,000  tons,  sunk  March  18,  1915, 
at  the  Dardanelles ;  and  the  Suffren,  13,- 
ooo  tons,  sunk  November  26,  1916,  off 
Lisbon. 

The  Italians  lost  no  battleships  by  sub- 
marine action,  though  they  lost  a  num- 
ber of  large  armored  cruisers,  as  did  the 
French  and  British.  Italian!  battleship 
losses  were  due  to  explosion  and  mines. 

The  Germans  have  lost  an  armored 
cruiser  and  three  light  cruisers,  all  sub- 
marined in  the  Baltic  in  1915.  The  Aus- 
trians  have,  apparently,  lost  only  one 
cruiser  to  submarines.  The  Turks  lost 
the  Messoudieh,  and  the  battleship  Kyehr- 
Ed-Din,  torpedoed  in  the  Sea  of  Mar- 
mora Sept.  8,  1915. 

Q. — Can  submarines  fight  subma- 
rines ? 

A. — Not  as  submarines — though  it  is 
stated  that  towards  the  end  of  1917  they 
were  being  more  and  more  employed  to 
locate  the  enemy.  They  can,  of  course, 
fight  each  other  with  guns  and  torpedoes 
on  the  surface,  but  that  is  only  like  other 
craft.  Submerged,  they  cannot  fight  each 
other,  because  the  crew  of  submarines 
cannot  see  under  water.  It  is  true  that 
the  conning-towers  have  glazed  look-out 
places,  but  even  in  clear  water  the  den- 
sity of  the  water- world  is  such  that  men 
can  see  only  a  few  yards.  It  is  conceiv- 
able that  two  submarines  might,  by  guess 
and  luck,  blunder  into  each  other,  and 
try  to  use  torpedoes;  but  it  is  a  remote 
possibility. 

Q. — Are  duels  under  seas  likely  in 
the  future? 

A. — There  remains  a  chance  that  sound- 
transmitting  apparatus  may  be  so  highly 
perfected  that  a  submarine  can  find  its 
prey  by  sound,  and  succeed  in  determin- 
ing its  whereabouts  even  though  it  re- 
mains invisible.  In  that  case,  there  may 
some  day  be  under-water  hunts  by  and  of 
submarines. 

It  is  the  dream,  of  course,  of  naval  in- 
ventors to  discover  some  way  to  make 
fairly  extended  sight  possible  under 
water.  This  would  make  the  submarine 
more  than  doubly  as  dangerous  to  sur- 
face ships  as  it  now  is,  for  then  it  might 
approach  a  ship  without  showing  its  peri- 
scope at  all.  But  so  far  there  has  been 
nothing  to  indicate  this  possibility. 


6o 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Were  the  American  destroy- 
ers really  effective  in  the  war- 
zone? 

A.— Very  effective,  but  not,  as  the 
American  people  first  assumed,  through 
destroying  submarines.  The  effectiveness 
was  by  patrol,  by  covering  the  war-zone 
with  constantly  cruising  watching  vessels 
of  vast  speed,  and  thus  limiting  both  the 
time  and  the  radius  of  action  of  the  sub- 
marines sharply. 

Q. — Did  our  destroyers  not  sink 
many  submarines? 

A. — In  January,  1918,  Commander  J.  K. 
Taussig,  U.  S.  Navy,  who  commanded 
the  first  American  destroyer  squadron 
that  crossed  the  sea,  made  a  public  ad- 
dress in  New  York,  describing  the  work 
done  by  these  vessels  during  seven  months 
of  war.  The  facts  that  he  gave  showed 
that  destruction  of  submarines  was  only 
a  part  of  the  real  task  and  importance  of 
the  anti-submarine  patrol.  He  said  that 
the  effective  system  (i)  was  a  convoyi'ng 
cordon  of  destroyers  to  defend  the  con- 
voyed vessels  against  such  submarines  as 
came  to  them  to  attack;  and  (2)  an  offen- 
sive patrol  of  destroyers  to  sweep  the 
seas  looking  for  submarines  and  attack- 
ing them  wherever  found. 

Q. — How  about  the  many  reports 
of  destroyed  submarines? 

A. — Commander  Taussig  said  in  refer- 
ence to  this  matter: 

"I  cannot  say  that  we  sank  many  sub- 
marines. The  submarine,  I  found,  was  a 
very  difficult  bird  to  catch.  He  has  tre- 
mendous advantage  over  the  surface 
craft.  In  the  first  place,  he  always  sees 
you  first.  As  he  was  not  after  destroyers, 
he  avoided  us  wherever  he  could.  That 
is,  if  he  saw  a  destroyer  on  the  horizon, 
the  submarine  always  went  the  other 
way." 

Q. — Did  the  Commander  say  that 
none  had  been  sunk? 

A. — He  said :  "When  we  saw  a  sub- 
marine, which  sometimes  happened  fre- 
quently, and,  at  other  times,  might  not 
happen  during  several  weeks,  we  would 
immediately  go  for  him  full  speed,  and 
open  fire  with  our  guns  in  the  hope  of 
getting  in  a  shot  before  he  submerged, 
but  he  always  submerged  very  quickly. 
Only  once  did  my  vessel,  in  seven 
months,  actually  succeed  in  firing  at  a 
submarine.  He  then  went  down  after 


the  fifth  shot  was  fired.     At  that  time  he 
was  five  miles  away." 

Q. — Is  the  torpedo  the  submarine's 
only  weapon? 

A. — No.  Modern  submarines  carry 
guns  on  deck,  which  are  stowed  in  water- 
tight depressions  when  submerged.  But 
against  troop  transports  their  only  wea- 
pon is  the  torpedo,  because,  in  order  to 
attack  a  transport  by  gun-fire,  they  would 
have  to  come  to  the  surface  and  thus 
would  inevitably  be  sunk  by  the  convoy- 
ing vessels. 

Q. — Just  what  is  a  torpedo?  Is  it 
anything  like  the  shell  fired 
from  a  gun? 

A.— The  torpedo  is  a  shell  and  a  craft 
combined — that  is,  it  acts  like  an  explo- 
sive shell  when  it  strikes  its  mark,  but, 
instead  of  being  fired  at  the  mark,  it 
actually  propels  itself,  like  a  little  boat. 

Q.— -What  does  it  look  like? 

A. — Like  a  cigar,  if  you  can  imagine  a 
polished  steel  cigar  from  eighteen  to 
twenty  feet  long,  and  weighing  rather 
more  than  a  ton,  the  very  big  ones  weigh- 
ing 3,000  pounds. 

Q. — Why  is  it  so  long?  Does  it 
carry  such  a  huge  amount  of 
explosive? 

A. — No.  It  does  carry  a  pretty  big 
load  of  explosive,  but  its  great  length  is 
due  to  the  elaborate  machinery  that  it 
contains. 

Q. — Where  does  it  carry  the  ex- 
plosive? 

A. — In  its  pointed  steel  snout,  which  is 
known  as  the  warhead.  The  full-service 
torpedo  carries  250  pounds  of  gun-cotton 
there. 

Q. — Where  is  the  machinery? 

A. — In  its  long  body  behind  the  ex- 
plosive. It  is  a  beautifully  devised  little 
turbine  engine  that  works  with  com- 
pressed air,  and  gives  the  torpedo  a  speed 
as  high  as  forty  miles  an  hour  so  long  as 
the  compressed  air  supply  holds  out. 

Q. — How  long  a  time  is  that? 

A. — Long  enough  to  drive  a  torpedo 
through  the  sea  for  as  much  as  four 
miles — quite  long  enough,  therefore,  to 


Man  Under  Water  (The  Submarine} 


61 


hit  its  mark,  for  a  torpedo  generally  is 
fired  at  a  mark  very  much  inside  of  that 
distance. 

Q. — How  is  the  torpedo  fired  from 
the  ship? 

A. — It  is  fired,  or,  rather,  propelled 
from  the  ship  by  a  blast  of  compressed 
air,  or  a  very  light  powder  charge,  that 
does  nothing  further  than  to  toss  it  into 
the  sea. 

Q. — Does  the  torpedo  always  point 
in  the  right  direction  when  it 
strikes  the  water? 

A. — It  generally  does,  but  it  does  not 
need  to.  The  ingenious  machinery  within 
it  is  so  set  that  it  steers  the  weapon  to- 
ward the  target  for  which  it  was  ad- 
justed. 

Q. — And  will  it  maintain  that  direc- 
tion? 

A. — Not  always.  Sometimes  a  big  wave 
may  so  strike  it  that  it  "deflects,"  that  is, 
turns  aside. 

Q. — When  a  torpedo  deflects,  what 
happens  ? 

A. — The  torpedo  turns  back  to  its  orig- 
inal direction  automatically,  because  it  is 
fitted  with  a  gyroscope  that  keeps  it  per- 
fectly true  or  forces  it  back  continually 
to  the  original  true  direction. 

Q. — Then  the  torpedo  really  is  not 
a  projectile  at  all? 

A. — No.  It  is  really  a  little  automatic 
torpedo  boat. 

Q. — How  does  it  explode? 

A. — It  explodes  when  it  hits  a  ship. 
There  is  a  firing-pin  in  its  tip,  and  this 
detonates  a  small  quantity  of  fulminate 
of  mercury,  one  of  the  most  sensitive  and 
violent  explosives  known.  The  detona- 
tion of  this,  in  turn,  explodes  the  gun- 
cotton. 

Q. — Does  the  torpedo  not  have  to 
pierce  the  ship  ? 

A. — No.  It  is  not  powerful  enough  to 
do  so.  It  is  the  explosion  of  the  gun- 
cotton  outside  of  the  ship  that  blows  a 
hole  into  it.  The  water,  being  non-com- 
pressible, forms  a  solid  cushion,  and  this 
drives  the  full  force  of  the  explosion 
against  the  vessel. 


Q. — How  did  the  Germans  manage 
to  turn  out  enough  torpedoes? 

A. — Their  apparent  ability  to  produce 
all  that  the  U-boats  needed  was  a  con- 
stant marvel  to  naval  experts  of  the 
•world,  who  knew  how  much  extremely 
fine  material  is  needed  for  a  single  one. 
However,  it  was  known  that  German  sub- 
marine commanders  were  extremely  care- 
ful to  conserve  torpedo  supply.  Extraor- 
dinarily strict  regulations  governed  their 
•use.  It  is  understood  that  every  com- 
mander had  to  account  in  detail  for  each 
torpedo,  being  held  strictly  accountable 
for  wasted  missiles. 

Q. — Did  the  American  patrol  force 
them  to  expend  more  torpe- 
does? 

A. — If  the  American  patrol  did  not 
force  them  actually  to  use  more  torpe- 
does, it  certainly  made  them  waste  more, 
because  it  forced  them  to  fire  a  larger 
number  at  long  range,  thus  wasting  many, 
because  they  registered  no  hits. 

Q. — How  did  the  patrols  force  this 
condition? 

A. — Partly  by  convoying  ships,  so  .that 
the  submarines  could  not  approach  within 
easy  torpedoing  distance  without  the  im- 
minent risk  of  having  a  destroyer  on  top 
of  them,  as  their  periscopes  arose  above 
the  surface  for  a  sight  at  the  prey. 
Partly  by  so  covering  the  sea  in  extended 
patrol  that  the  submarine  had  few  chances 
to  chase  ships  and  destroy  them  by  shell- 
fire  from  the  surface,  because  the  wire- 
less call  for  help  would  bring  destroyers 
to  the  scene. 

Q. — How  many  torpedoes  could 
German  submarines  carry? 

A. — A  minimum  of  four  on  the  small, 
old-type  submarines.  A  maximum  of 
twelve  on  the  big  super-submarines  per- 
fected during  the  war.  The  U-53,  which 
visited  Newport  and  then  sank  Allied 
ships  off  Nantucket,  carried  ten.  It  was 
said  in  1918  that  the  Germans  had  insti- 
tuted the  manufacture  of  two  types  of 
torpedoes — one  the  full-charge,  highly 
perfected,  long-range  torpedo,  which  costs 
a  great  deal;  the  other  a  greatly  cheap- 
ened torpedo,  which  was  limited  to  500 
or  600  yards'  range,  but  was  quite  ef- 
fective within  that  range. 

Q. — Was  the  Deutschland  a  war- 
ship? 

A. — No.  She  was  a  submarine  mer- 
chantman, the  first  one  in  the  world.  She 


62 


Questions  and  Answers 


was  unarmed.  The  Dcutsrhland  was 
about  300  feet  long,  and  carried  a  cargo 
of  800  tons.  In  1916  she  twice  sailed 
from  Germany  to  the  United  States  and 
returned.  Each  crossing  of  the  Atlantic 
took  from  16  to  22  days,  and  each  time 
she  ran  the  British  blockade  successfully. 
The  German  cargo  consisted  chiefly  of 
dyestuffs.  The  American  return  cargo 
was  rubber  and  nickel.  No  other  such 
vessel  ever  reached  an  American  port, 
although  the  sailing  of  a  companion  ves- 
sel, the  Bremen,  was  reported. 

Q. — Do    submarines    move    under 
water  with  gasolene  power? 

A. — No.  The  gasolene  engines  can 
work  under  water  only  with  great  diffi- 
culty. Apart  from  the  combustion  of  the 
limited  supply  of  air  in  a  submerged  sub- 
marine, the  exhausts  cannot  operate  suf- 
ficiently against  the  great  water  pressure 
below  the  surface.  Besides  this,  the  ex- 
haust would  send  an  unceasing  stream  of 
bubbles  to  the  surface,  and  thus  betray 
the  exact  whereabouts  of  the  submarine 
to  its  foes. 

Q. — What    power    do    submarines 
use  under  water? 

A. — Power  from  electric  storage  bat- 
teries. Whenever  the  submarine  can  lie 
on  the  surface,  its  gasolene  engines  are 
operated  at  top  speed,  to  generate  elec- 
tricity for  charging  these  batteries.  In 
dangerous  waters  this  is  often  done  at 
night.  The  storage  batteries  can  store 
enough  power  so  that  a  submarine  can, 
if  necessary,  run  submerged  for  about  24 
hours  without  needing  to  come  to  the 
surface.  Such  long  runs,  however,  are 
rarely  required. 

Q. — How  does   a  submarine  sub- 
merge? 

A. — Partly  by  taking  water  into  its  bal- 
last tanks,  and  partly  by  diving.  It  can 
submerge  by  taking  in  water  only,  but 
then  it  simply  sinks  slowly  to  an  awash 
condition.  It  cannot  take  too  much  water 
in,  for  it  would  lose  its  buoyancy  and 
continue  to  sink  till  it  got  to  the  bottom. 

Therefore,  as  soon  as  it  has  enough 
water-weight  on  board  to  bring  it  awash, 
the  engines  are  started,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  the  forward  diving-rudders  or  fins 
are  so  set  that  as  the  submarine  is  pro- 
pelled forward,  its  bow  is  forced  down- 
ward. It  is  a  very  delicate  operation,  for 
the  engines  must  work  with  great  force, 
and  any  undue  operation  of  the  diving- 
rudders  may  send  the  vessel  down  bow 


first,   plunging   it   to   a   dangerous   depth, 
and  even  turning  it  end  over  end. 

Q. — Can  you  give  a  brief  sum- 
mary of  submarine  warfare 
questions  ? 

A. —  (i)  December  24,  1914.  Admiral 
von  Tirpitz  throws  out  hints  in  a  news- 
paper interview  of  a  wholesale  torpedo- 
ing policy.  (2)  February  4,  1915.  Ger- 
man Government  proclaims  a  war  zone 
about  the  British  Isles,  and  her  intention 
to  sink  any  enemy  merchantmen  encoun- 
tered in  this  zone  without  warning.  (3) 
May  I  (dated  April  22),  1915.  Ger- 
man embassy  publishes  in  New  York 
morning  papers  warning  against  taking 
passage  on  ships  which  our  government 
has  told  the  people  they  had  a  perfect 
right  to  take.  The  Lusitania  sailed  at 
12.20  noon,  May  i,  and  was  sunk  on  May 
7.  (4)  August  19,  1915.  Sinking  of  the 
Arabic,  whereupon  von  Bernstorff  gave 
an  oral  pledge  for  his  government  that 
hereafter  German  submarines  would  not 
sink  "liners"  without  warning.  (5)  Feb- 
ruary, 1916.  Germany  makes  proposals 
looking  toward  "assuming  liability"  for 
the  Lusitania  victims,  but  the  whole  case 
is  complicated  again  by  the  "armed  ship" 
issue.  (6)  March  24,  1916.  Sinking  of 
the  Sussex,  passenger  vessel,  with  Ameri- 
cans on  board.  (7)  May  4,  1916.  Ger- 
many, in  response  to  the  threat  of  the 
United  States  Government  to  break  off 
diplomatic  relations  with  her,  gives  her 
"Sussex  pledge."  (8)  January  31,  1917. 
Germany  notifies  our  government  that  she 
will  begin  "unrestricted  submarine  war" 
on  the  following  day.  (9)  February  3, 
1917.  The  President  gives  Count  Bern- 
storff his  passports  and  recalls  Ambas- 
sador Gerard  from  Berlin,  (to)  April  6, 
1917.  American  declaration  of  a  state  of 
war. 

Q.— When  was  the  White  Star 
liner  "Arabic"  sunk? 

A. — She  was  sunk  August  19,  1915, 
while  the  general  submarine  situation  was 
under  strenuous  discussion  between  the 
two  governments.  There  had  been,  how- 
ever, a  distinct  impression  that  the  Ger- 
man Government  had  already  ordered 
such  attacks  to  cease. 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  offer  any  ex- 
cuse? 

A. — They  set  up  the  allegation  that  the 
Arabic  had  approached  their  subma- 
rine in  such  a  manner  as  to  indicate 
to  the  submarine  commander  that  the 


Man  Under  Water  (The  Submarine) 


liner  intended  to  ram.  The  submarine 
had  just  sunk  another  ship,  and  it  was 
established  by  both  the  German  and  the 
British  evidence  that  the  Arabic  had  un- 
doubtedly approached  the  submarine. 

The  Arabic's  officers,  however,  swore 
that  they  had  not  done  so  with  any  in- 
tention of  attacking,  and  the  German  gov- 
ernment finally  accepted  their  testimony 
and  informed  the  United  States  that  the 
act  of  the  submarine  was  "regretted  and 
disavowed,"  that  it  was  "undertaken 
against  the  instructions  issued  to  the 
commander,"  and  that  Germany  was  pre- 
pared to  pay  an  indemnity  for  the  loss  of 
American  lives. 

Q. — Was  there  not  a  further  prom- 
ise? 

A. — While  the  case  still  was  under  dis- 
cussion by  the  two  governments,  Count 
von  Bernstorff,  the  German  Ambassador, 
gave  a  pledge  for  his  government  that 
"liners  will  not  be  sunk  by  our  subma- 
rines without  warning  and  without  safety 
of  the  lives  of  non-combatants,  provided 
that  the  liners  do  not  Vy  to  escape  or 
offer  resistance." 

Q. — What  was  the  "Ancona"  case? 

A. — The  Ancona  was  an  Italian  steam- 
ship from  Genoa,  which  was  shelled  and 
torpedoed  in  November,  1915.  As  she  had 
American  citizens  among  her  passengers, 
the  United  States  protested  energetically. 
After  some  correspondence,  the  Austrian 
government  announced  that  it  had  laid 
down  the  rule  that  "hostile  private  ships, 
in  so  far  as  they  do  not  flee  or  offer  re- 
sistance, may  not  be  destroyed  without 
the  persons  on  board  having  been  placed 
in  safety."  The  Austrians  also  agreed  to 
indemnify  the  American  sufferers. 

Q. — Have  the  Germans  mine-laying 
submarines  ? 

A. — They  appear  to  have  a  large  num- 
ber, and  some  have  been  captured.  They 
have  specially  constructed  air-tight  cham- 
bers into  which  the  mines  are  placed 
ready  to  be  sown.  These  mines  are  some- 
what smaller  than  those  hitherto  used,  but 
are  deadly  nevertheless.  When  the  sub- 
marine has  reached  the  desired  spot,  the 
chamber  is  flooded  with  water  and  the 
mines  are  ejected  by  mechanical  means. 
The  method  by  which  they  are  anchored 
to  the  sea-bottom  and  then  floated  to  the 
required  height  is  exceedingly  ingenious. 
According  to  Italian  reports,  the  Germans 
have  used  a  very  rough  sort  of  subma- 
rine for  mine-laying  in  the  Adriatic,  but 


those  captured  by  the  British  are  appar- 
ently very  efficient  craft. 

Q. — What  is  a  submarine  mine? 

A. — It  is  a  weapon  used  principally  to 
>defend  the  approaches  to  harbors  and 
anchorages.  There  are  two  main  varie- 
ties— those  under  direct  control  from  the 
shore,  and  those  not  under  control.  The 
former  are  exploded  by  electricity  from  a 
station  on  land ;  the  latter  are  mechanical, 
and  explode  when  struck  by  a  passing 
vessel. 

Q. — How  big  is  a  submarine  mine? 

A. — Submarine  mines  are  usually  cylin- 
drical in  shape,  some  four  feet  in  diam- 
eter. They  are  not  made  larger  owing  to 
difficulty  of  handling,  and  are  quite  large 
enough  to  contain  a  charge  sufficient  to 
sink  great  ships. 

Q. — Do  these  mines  float  about  or 
are  they  attached? 

A. — Most  of  them  are  anchored,  but 
floating  mines  are  also  sown,  and  drift 
about  to  the  danger  of  all  shipping.  The 
anchored  ones  usually  lie  some  six  feet 
below  the  surface.  Many  are  made  so 
that  when  they  break  away  from  their 
moorings  they  become  innocuous.  A  spe- 
cial contrivance  prevents  the  mine  being 
fired  whilst  it  is  being  laid ;  in  fact  it 
does  not  become  dangerous  for  some  min- 
utes after  it  has  been  put  into  the  sea. 

Q. — How  can  these  mines  be  dis- 
covered? 

A. — Trawlers  are  used  to  discover  and 
catch  them.  The  British  make  use  of  the 
steam  drifters  (fishermen)  of  the  North 
Sea  for  this  purpose.  The  method  is  for 
four  or  five  of  them  to  steam  abreast, 
sweeping  the  sea  behind  them  with  long 
hawsers  and  grappling  apparatus.  In 
this  way  all  the  trade  routes  and  chan- 
nels can  be  got  quickly  rid  of  mines.  The 
trawlers  themselves  are  of  light  enough 
draft  to  pass  above  them.  Special  appli- 
ances are  used  for  the  trawling.  The 
North  Sea  fishermen  know  the  set  of  the 
currents,  the  channels  and  shoals,  so  are 
obviously  the  best  men  to  send  after  mines 
which  drift  with  the  current. 

Q. — Did  Germany  lay  mines  on  the 
British  coast  before  the  declar- 
ation of  war? 

A. — Such  an  assertion  was  made  at  the 
time,  but  there  was  never  any  proof 


Questions  and  Answers 


forthcoming,  and  it  appears  entirely  un- 
tenable. Ordinary  shipping  met  no  mis- 
haps before  war  was  declared.  Had 
mines  been  about,  there  would  have  been 
many  vessels  sunk. 

Q. — What  is  a  torpedo  mine? 

A. — It  is  a  contrivance  somewhat  like 
a  torpedo  tube,  loaded  with  a  special  form 
of  mine,  imbedded  in  the  bottom  of  the 
channel.  No  mine  sweepers  can  reach 
it,  for  it  is  buried  in  the  bed  itself.  It  is 
fired  by  electricity  from  the  shore  when 
a  ship  passes  over  it.  This  invention  is 
used  to  defend  harbors  and  straits. 

Q. — What  German  submarine  op- 
erated off  the  American  coast? 

A. — The  U-53,  a  very  modern  vessel, 
which  made  a  sudden  appearance  in  New- 
port harbor,  greatly  to  the  excitement  of 
all  America.  It  arrived  in  the  Rhode 
Island  harbor  on  October  8,  1916,  with 
letters  for  the  German  ambassador,  and 
soon  put  to  sea  again.  The  next  thing 
the  American  public  learned  was  through 
big  headlines  saying  that  the  U-53  was 
sinking  ships  off  Nantucket.  Among  the 
five  or  six  vessels  sunk  was  the  steamer 
Stephana,  which  carried  American  pas- 
sengers. The  passengers  and  cVews  of  all 
the  vessels  were  picked  up  by  United 
States  destroyers,  and  no  lives  were  lost. 

The  episode,  which  was  an  eight-day 
wonder,  and  resulted  in  a  temporary  tie- 
up  of  shipping  in  eastern  ports,  started 
numerous  rumors  and  several  legal  ques- 
tions, none  of  which,  however,  turned  out 
of  material  importance,  as  U-53  vanished 
as  suddenly  as  it  came,  and  its  visit  was 
not  succeeded  by  any  others. 

Q. — Can  a  submarine  send  wireless 
without  high  masts? 

A. — Yes.  Of  course  the  lack  of  high 
masts  limits  its  radius,  but  submarines 
can  do  very  well,  indeed.  The  German 
submarines  were  thoroughly  fitted  with 
wireless  in  the  very  beginning  of  the 
war.  Indeed,  without  wireless  they 
would  have  been  pretty  helpless — unable 
to  get  in  touch  with  any  other  submarine 
and  quite  unable  to  learn  anything,  ex- 
cept what  they  could  see.  But,  fitted  as 
they  were,  they  could  keep  themselves 
and  their  fellow-raiders  so  well  informed 
that  they  managed  to  warn  each  other 
quite  successfully  of  dangers,  and  they 
succeeded  in  operating  in  unison  more  or 
less,  besides  picking  up  a  good  deal  of 
the  enemy  wireless. 


Q. — Did  German  submarines  need 
no  masts  at  all  for  wireless  ? 

A. — Oh,  yes.  They  had  to  have  masts, 
and  they  had  them.  The  wireless  masts 
were  folding  or  telescopic  that  could  be 
elevated  about  twenty  feet,  and  this  gave 
them  a  radius  of  from  125  to  perhaps 
200  miles — the  minimum  distance  being 
in  the  day  time  when  conditions  were 
poor,  and  the  maximum  being  at  night 
when  conditions  are  unusually  good. 
The  average  wireless  range  of  the  early 
boats  probably  would  be  about  150  miles. 

Q. — Can  German  submarines  com- 
municate with  the  German  ad- 
miralty? 

A. — They  did  so  even  in  the  early  days 
when  they  did  not  carry  wireless  as  pow- 
erful as  the  equipment  in  the  very  new 
types.  When  the  British  battleship  For- 
midable was  sunk  by  one  of  them  in  the 
North  Sea  on  New  Year's  Day,  1915,  the 
German  Admiralty  gave  out  the  news  al- 
most as  quickly  as  it  was  known  to  the 
British  Admiralty.  The  submarine  had 
wirelessed  her  news  into  the  air,  and  other 
German  submarines  had  caught  it,  and 
relayed  it  on  and  on  till  it  reached  one 
that  could,  in  turn,  reach  Germany. 

Q. — Have  the  Germans  greatly  per- 
fected wireless  on  submarines? 

A. — It  has  been  reported,  with  much 
circumstantial  detail,  that  the  Germans 
have  pitched  on  a  very  simple  and  effec- 
tive device  for  elevating  the  wireless  an- 
tennae from  their  submarines  to  great 
heights,  and  thus  extending  their  wire- 
less radius  to  as  much  as  1,000  miles.  The 
device  is  said  to  be  simply  a  couple  of 
small  balloons  that  are  sent  up  with  the 
wire  attached  to  them.  Under  favorable 
conditions  they  may  go  as  high  as  2,000 
feet.  This  method  could  be  used  with 
comparative  ease  at  night  when  the  sub- 
marines could  venture  to  lie  motionless 
on  the  surface. 

Q. — How  many  different  ways  can 
a  submarine  operate? 

A.— In  four  ways:  (l)  running  light, 
that  is,  wholly  on  the  surface  like  any 
other  vessel;  (2)  awash,  that  is,  just  suf- 
ficiently sunk  to  submerge  her  hull  but 
leave  her  conning  tower  and  bridge  above 
the  surface  so  that  her  captain  can  com- 
mand her  from  the  surface;  (3)  surface- 
submerged,  that  is,  totally  under  water, 
but  so  close  to  the  surface  that  her  crew 
can  see  the  world  through  their  periscope; 


Man  Under  Water  (The  Submarine) 


(4)  submerged,  when  the  periscope  is 
useless  and  the  navigation  must  be  done 
entirely  by  calculation. 

Q. — Why  does  oil  on  the  surface  in- 
dicate that  a  submarine  has 
been  sunk? 

A. — It  does  not,  necessarily.  There 
have  been  many  newspaper  statements 
that  a  rammed  submarine  was  known  to 
have  been  destroyed  because  large  patches 
of  oil  were  seen  on  the  surface  after  the 
ramming.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however, 
oil  rising  to  the  surface  simply  indicates 
that  there  has  been  an  injury  to  one  of 
the  fuel-oil  supply  tanks,  which  are  sit- 
uated in  the  outer  skin  of  German  sub- 
marines. The  actual  hull  of  the  sub- 
marine is  inside  of  these.  A  smashed 
oil-tank  would,  of  course,  injure  the 
under-water  boat  considerably,  but  it 
does  not  destroy  her,  nor  prevent  her 
from  voyaging  to  her  base  for  repairs. 
A  more  certain  indication  of  fatal  dam- 
age to  a  submarine  would  be  the  vast 
rush  of  air  that  must  spout  from  her 
compressed  air-tanks  if  she  is  really  in- 
jured badly.  This  would  mount  to  the 
surface  in  a  perfect  maelstrom  of  froth- 
ing bubbles. 

Q. — How  quickly  can  a  submarine's 
guns  be  housed? 

A. — In  from  twenty  to  thirty  seconds. 
The  Krupp  rapid-fire  3-inch  guns  with 
which  German  submarines  are  armed,  are 
so  mounted  that  by  the  pull  of  a  single 
lever  they  will  turn  over  backward  on  an 
axle  and  lie  snugly  upside  down  in  the 
well,  which  is  then  closed  with  a  water- 
tight, hinged  coyer.  The  time  for  the 
whole  operation  is  20  seconds.  Some  of 
the  very  latest  types  have,  in  addition  to 
these  collapsible  guns,  smaller  deck  guns, 
which  do  not  need  housing  at  all,  because 
they  are  made  of  metals  impervious  to 
salt-water. 

Q. — Can  submarines  escape  a  storm 
by  sinking  below  the  surface? 

A. — They  need  only  sink  about  thirty 
feet  to  escape  nearly  every  sense  of  mo- 
tion from  an  ordinarily  rough  surface 
sea.  If  the  gale  is  very  violent,  there 
may  be  some  motion  as  far  as  forty-five 
feet  below  the  surface,  but  at  fifty  feet 
the  water  usually  is  still  as  death.  This 
is  in  deep  ocean  water.  In  the  shallow 
North  Sea  and  the  Baltic,  the  ground- 
swells  often  make  a  pumping  motion  that 
is  noticeable  forty  feet  deep,  and  sub- 


marines must  be  handled  cautiously  when 
submerged,  for  fear  of  being  unexpect- 
edly pounded  against  the  bottom. 

Q. — How  quickly  can  a  submarine 
submerge  ? 

A. — A  submarine  that  is  cruising  awash, 
and  all  cleared  for  quick  action,  can  shut 
her  water-tight  hatches  and  sink  out  of 
sight  in  less  than  three  minutes.  In  or- 
dinary times,  the  period  that  has  to  elapse 
between  running  light  on  the  surface  with 
hatches  open  and  gear  exposed,  to  the 
moment  of  total  submersion  is  about 
eight  minutes  with  ordinary  speed  of 
crew-work. 

Q. — How   deep   can   a   submarine 
go? 

A. — If  it  were  not  for  water-pressure, 
a  submarine  could  go  to  the  bottom  of 
the  deepest  oceanic  abyss  in  the  world 
with  absolutely  no  trouble.  But  water- 
pressure  is  a  tremendous  thing.  At  200 
feet  the  pressure  on  a  man  is  the  same 
as  if  he  were  under  a  load  of  13  tons. 
To  withstand  such  pressures  a  submarine 
must  be  of  extremely  strong  construc- 
tion. Any  leak,  however  slight,  might 
fill  her  with  enough  water  to  overcome 
her  reserve  buoyancy ;  and  then  she  would 
sink  rapidly  to  depths  that  will  simply 
crush  anything  made  of  man.  Therefore 
submarines  rarely  venture  lower  than  loo 
feet,  and  the  usual  cruising  depth  is  thirty 
or  fifty  feet.  American  submarines  are 
built  by  the  Navy  to  withstand  test  at  200 
feet,  and  they  have  navigated  at  greater 
depths,  but  only  for  a  "stunt." 

Q. — What     American     submarine 
was  lost  by  sinking  too  deep? 

A. — The  F  4.  She  was  cruising  sub- 
merged off  Honolulu  Harbor  (Hawaaian 
Islands),  and  sank  in  250  feet  of  water. 
American  naval  divers  performed  extraor- 
dinary exploits  in  trying  to  reach  her, 
and,  in  the  end,  despite  the  terrific  water- 
pressure,  succeeded  in  attaching  cables  so 
that  she  could  be  raised  and  dragged 
ashore.  Her  entire  crew,  however,  was 
lost,  for  she  was  not  raised  for  many 
days  after  the  accident. 

Q. — How  far  can  a  submarine  pilot 
see  through  the  periscope? 

A. — On  a  clear  day,  with  his  periscope 
sticking  fifteen  feet  above  the  surface,  he 
can  see  such  an  object  as  a  battleship  five 
miles  away.  With  the  periscope  only 


66 


Questions  and  Answers 


just  showing  above  the  surface,  he  can 
see  a  ship  a  little  more  than  a  mile 
away. 

Q. — How  can  a  man  find  his  way 
under  water? 

A. — The  answer  is :  how  does  a  sailor 
find  his  way  on  top  of  the  water?  All 
he  can  see  is  water  and  sky.  The  sun 
will  tell  him  where  east,  west,  north  and 
south  are,  but  that  is  all.  The  sailor  on 
the  surface  steers  not  by  sight  (except, 
of  course,  to  avoid  some  other  ship),  but 
by  chart  and  compass.  In  fog  or  black 
nights  his  eyes  are  of  no  more  use  than 
if  he  were  under  water.  The  submarine 
captain  steers  similarly — by  chart  and 
compass. 

Q. — Can  a  submarine  be  steered  as 
easily  under  water  as  a  ship  on 
the  surface? 

A. — Just  as  easily.  The  rudder  acts  in 
just  the  same  way.  In  fact,  a  ship  run- 
ning on  the  surface  in  a  sea-way  or  in 
a  high  wind  is  much  harder  to  steer  than 
a  submerged  submarine  which  has  no 
waves  to  disturb  it. 


Q. — How  does  a  submarine  com- 
mander know  how  deep  under 
water  he  is? 

A. — He  simply  looks  at  an  indicator, 
•which  is  worked  by  water  pressure.  The 
pressure  of  water  increases  at  a  certain 
positive  and  accurately  known  ratio 
with  every  bit  of  depth.  The  submarine 
commander  can  tell  his  depth  to  the  foot 
— to  the  inch  if  he  wants  to  be  so  ac- 
curate. 

Q. — Did  our  destroyers  capture  any 
German  submarines? 

A. — The  American  destroyers  Fanning 
and  Nicholson  sighted  a  periscope  while 
escorting  a  convoy.  They  dropped  depth 
charges  where  the  submarine  had  sub- 
merged, and  in  a  few  minutes  she  came 
up  bow  first.  For  a  moment  she  was 
down  by  the  stern,  but  she  righted  her- 
self and  seemed  to  be  speeding  up,  so 
the  Fanning  fired  three  shots  at  her.  The 
submarine  crew  then  came  on  deck  and 
held  up  their  hands  in  token  of  sur- 
render. The  destroyers  got  a  line  to  her, 
but  she  sank  in  a  few  minutes.  The  sub- 
marine crew  jumped  into  the  water,  and 
was  picked  up  by  the  destroyers. 


MAN  IN  THE  AIR 


Q. — Does  the  term  "ace"  mean  a 
man  or  a  flying  machine? 

A. — It  means  a  man — a  man  nearest  to 
the  knight  of  old  wars,  who  fought  bat- 
tles with  other  knights  while  the  armies 
looked  on,  waiting  to  see  which  champion 
should  conquer. 

The  "ace"  is  a  fighting  air-man  whose 
skill  and  daring  make  hfm  a  veritable 
champion  of  the  twentieth  century  war. 
Mounted  in  the  swiftest  machines  that 
science  can  turn  out,  the  ace  flies  forth 
to  attack  the  hostile  lines  in  every  way 
possible.  Many  times  in  this  war  a  cele- 
brated ace  has  fought  from  two  to  a 
dozen  hostile  machines  and  has  not  only 
escaped,  but  has  actually  made  havoc 
among  his  assailants  so  that,  sometimes, 
brave  as  they  were,  they  had  to  yield  to 
superior  skill  and  resourcefulness,  and 
retired,  defeated  and  baffled,  often  with  a 
humiliating  list  of  killed. 


Q. — Which  side  has  the  greatest 
aces? 

A. — The  most  burning  patriotism  (and, 
indeed,  even  the  most  jealous  partisan- 
ship) cannot  lay  claim  to  distinct  supe- 
riority for  either  side.  All  but  the  most 
blindly  partial  observers  on  the  Allied  or 
German  sides  admit  that  honors  are  even. 

For  a  long  time  (and  some  think  even, 
now)  the  advantage  was  with  the  Ger- 
man side  in  one  very  important,  almost 
.vital,  respect.  They  had  the  fastest  ma- 
chines that  the  world  ever  saw.  Thfs 
gave  a  naturally  dashing  ace  an  immense 
superiority;  and,  as  a  result,  the  figures 
of  these  championship  combats  indicate 
that  in  actual  results  the  German  aces 
have  obtained  a  somewhat  better  record 
than  their  opponents. 

In  an  article  printed  by  the  Outlook 
early  in  1918  it  was  stated  that  the  offi- 
cial aviation  record  shows  Germany  to  be 
victor  in  the  fight  of  aces  with  a  score  of 
1,121  victories  won  by  66  aces  to  1,171 
victories  won  by  125  Allied  aces.  The 
author,  who  says  that  he  is  giving  all  the 
victories  of  all  the  air-forces  to  Decem- 
ber, 1917,  ascribes  part  of  the  result  to 
the  competence  of  the  German  air-chief, 
General  von  Hoeppner,  whom  he  char- 
acterizes as  a  wonderfully  gifted  air- 
expert. 


Q.-^What  are  the  ruling  tactics  of 
German  aces? 

A. — One  of  the  known  reasons  for  their 
many  successes  is  that  the  German  air- 
service  has  laid  down  a  series  of  accu- 
rate and  severe  rules  that  make  the  Ger- 
man ace  not  a  mere  "tone  hand,"  trusting 
to  his  own  unaided  ability.  The  German 
air-fighters  operate  under  a  system  of 
tactics  very  much  like  those  that  are  prac- 
ticed as  a  matter  of  course  by  all  cavalry 
on  earth  and  by  all  naval  men  on  the  sea. 
The  German  ace  may  venture  most  dar- 
ingly to  draw  pursuit — but  behind  him  is 
team-work,  strong  support,  and  an  abso- 
lute system  of  procedure. 

He  is  not  permitted  to  go  out  for  glory. 
He  must  go  out  for  tangible  success. 
Just  as  concealed  cavalry  waits  on  land 
till  a  flying  detachment  of  its  own  can 
draw  a  too  zealous  enemy  hot  after  it,  or 
as  naval  vessels  wait  in  force  till  a  single 
scout  of  theirs  can  draw  an  enemy  squad- 
ron into  their  reach,  so  the  German  ace 
is  expected  to  draw  pursuers  till  his  com- 
rades can  swoop  down  in  mass  formation 
with  vastly  superior  force. 

Q. — Is  there  a  record  of  the  vic- 
tories won  by  aces? 

A. — Yes.  The  famous  aces  of  the  war 
were :  about  60  French,  about  40  British, 
about  65  German,  and  about  60  Italian, 
Belgian,  American  (with  Lafayette  Es- 
cadrille),  Russian,  Bulgar  and  Turks. 
The  Bulgars  and  the  Turks  had  only  one 
each. 

The  ten  Italians  are  credited  with  more 
than  120  victories,  and  were  said  to  be 
all  still  living  at  the  end  of  autumn,  1917. 

Of  the  French,  about  fifteen  were  killed 
after  winning  about  170  victories.  Thirty- 
seven  German  aces  were  killed  or  cap- 
tured after  589  victories.  The  one  Bul- 
gar was  killed  after  20  victories.  The 
one  Turk  was  said  to  be  still  living  in 
February,  1918,  after  8  victories. 

The  American  Lafayette  Escadrille  rec- 
ord was,  as  given  in  the  Outlook :  living, 
12  with  35  victories ;  dead,  3  with  10 
victories. 

The  33  British  aces,  of  whom  3  are 
known  to  have  been  killed,  have  400  vic- 
tories to  their  credit.  There  are  more 
brilliant  British  airmen  than  these  fig- 
ures indicate.  Great  Britain,  for  some 
reason,  does  not  make  it  a  regular  busi- 
ness to  give  details. 


68 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Have   the   Americans   a  very 
famous  ace? 

A. — Yes.  One  of  the  most  famous  was 
an  American,  Major  Raoul  Lufbery,  of 
Wallingford,  Conn.,  who  in  January, 
1918,  was  commander  of  the  Lafayette 
Escadrille.  His  record  is  exceptional 
even  in  this  exceptional  field,  for  he  had 
seventeen  victories  to  his  credit,  having 
brought  down  that  many  German  ma- 
chines. After  thirty  months'  air-service 
he  was  still  unhurt. 

Q. — What  was  the  record  of  Guy- 
nemer,  the  famous  French  ace  ? 

A. — Fifty-four  aeroplanes  put  out  of 
commission,  215  combats  and  two  wounds. 
On  one  occasion  he  succeeded  in  bringing 
down  three  enemy  aeroplanes  in  less  than 
an  hour.  He  finally  fell  himself  in  a  bat- 
tle with  40  aeroplanes  of  the  enemy  after 
having  brought  down  one  of  the  forty. 

Q. — Is  there  a  new  German  super- 
dreadnaught  flying  machine? 

A. — It  has  been  reported  with  circum- 
stantial detail  that  the  Germans  are  build- 
ing a  monster  which  they  call  the 
"Riesen-flugzeug,"  meaning  literally 
"Giant  Flying  Apparatus."  The  details 
as  given  are  that  this  monster  is  a  bi- 
plane with  four  engines  placed  two 
abreast,  one  set  driving  a  pusher  propeller 
(in  the  back)  and  the  other  driving  a 
tractor  propeller  (in  front). 

The  carrying  capacity  in  bombs  alone 
is  said  to  be  more  than  a  ton, — three 
bombs  of  a  thousand  pounds  each, — 
enough  to  wreak  terrific  destruction. 

The  biplanes,  according  to  these  re- 
ports, are  to  be  bombers  exclusively,  with 
platforms  carrying  a  sufficiently  large 
crew  of  machine  and  rapid-fire  gunners 
to  fight  off  any  possible  attack. 

Q. — Where  can  the  Germans  get 
airship  material? 

A. — According  to  a  report  from  Wash- 
ington (printed  with  a  suggestion  that  it 
was  official,  but  not  positively  saying  so) 
some  captured  German  airplanes  had  been 
brought  to  this  country  and  examined 
carefully  by  our  experts  early  in  1918; 
and  this  examination  showed  that  the 
Germans  were  very  hard  put  to  it  indeed 
for  material.  The  most  noticeable  short- 
age was  in  spruce  and  linen  for  the  wings. 

The  wing  beams,  instead  of  being  of 
solid  pieces  of  the  finest  and  toughest 
spruce,  as  is  demanded  in  American  speci- 
fications, were  made  of  thin  pieces  jointed 


with  nails  and  glue.  The  wings  were  cov- 
ered with  fiber  cloth  instead  of  the  thor- 
oughly well-woven  linen  that  is  demanded 
in  a  perfect  machine. 

Q. — Is  a  special  bullet  used  against 
aeroplanes? 

A. — Yes.  It  is  another  development  of 
this  war.  It  has  been  found  that  the 
bullet  needed  against  flying  craft  must 
be  capable  of  piercing  armor  in  the  first 
place,  and  that  it  must  have  some  prop- 
erty that  shall  cause  more  damage  than  a 
mere  hole,  which  rarely  cripples  an  aero- 
plane. 

The  United  States  Army  Ordnance 
Department  has  turned  out  a  bullet  of 
the  regulation  American  army  rifle  caliber 
that  will  not  only  pierce  the  armor  of 
flying  craft,  but  will  produce  a  flame  as 
it  leaves  the  rifle  or  machine  gun.  This 
flame  serves  as  a  "tracer,"  thus  enabling 
the  gunner  to  gauge  his  shots  and  correct 
his  aim  till  he  hits  the  mark.  By  day  the 
fiery  compound  leaves  a  hanging  smoke 
to  serve  as  "tracer."  When  the  fiery 
bullet  hits,  it  goes  through  the  armor  and 
sets  fire  along  its  whole  line  of  flight. 
The  object  particularly  is  to  explode  the 
flying  machine's  gasoline  tanks. 

Q. — Did   Allied   aviators    decorate 
graves  of  German  airmen? 

A. — Yes.  At  the  funerals  of  Boelcke 
and  Immelmann,  German  military  avia- 
tors in  Belgium,  British  aviators  flew 
over  and  dropped  wreaths. 

It  is  one  cheering  fact  in  the  war  that 
the  aviators  of  both  sides  performed  this 
chivalrous  act  more  than  once. 

Q. — Does  war  destroy  many  aero- 
planes? 

A. — The  French  authorities  reported  in 

1917  that  in  one  period  of  four  months 
they  had  brought  down  73  German  ma- 
chines inside  of  French  lines.     They  cal- 
culated that   188  had  gone   down  behind 
the    German    lines,    and    of    these    they 
thought  enough  had  been  so  badly  shat- 
tered to  justify  the  claim  that  at  least  231 
had  been  destroyed  in  those  four  months. 

Q. — How  big  is  the  British  naval 
air-service? 

A. — It  was  700  before  the  war  and  by 

1918  had  increased  to  41,000.    The  United 
Service   Gasette    (British)    said  in    1918: 
"During    one    month    the    aircraft    patrol 
around    the    British    coast    alone    is    five 
times    the    circumference    of    the    earth. 


Man  in  the  Air 


During  September  (1917)  64  raids  were 
made  on  enemy  dockyards,  etc.,  and  2,736 
bombs  were  dropped,  totaling  85  tons  of 
explosive." 

Q. — At  the  beginning  of  war,  how 
many  aircraft  were  there? 

A. — France  had  22  dirigibles  and  1,400 
aeroplanes ;  Russia  had  18  dirigibles  and 
800  aeroplanes ;  Great  Britain,  9  dirigibles 
and  400  aeroplanes ;  Belgium,  2  dirigibles 
and  100  aeroplanes ;  Germany,  40  dirigi- 
bles and  1,000  aeroplanes ;  Austria,  8 
dirigibles  and  400  aeroplanes ;  while  the 
United  States  had  only  23  aeroplanes, 
mostly  obsolete. 

Q. — What     was     Germany's     air 
strength  later  in  the  war? 

A. — It  is  estimated  by  the  French  that 
the  German  air  fleet  at  the  beginning  of 
1918  numbered  about  300  squadrillas,  or  a 
total  of  2,500  machines,  each  squadrilla 
being  comprised  of  from  five  to  ten  ma- 
chines. 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  between 
an  airship  and  an  aeroplane? 

A. — An  airship  is  lighter  than  air;  that 
is  to  say,  it  mounts  because  it  is  filled 
with  a  buoyant  gas.  An  aeroplane  is 
heavier  than  air;  it  carries  no  gas  to  lift 
it,  '  but  mounts  by  forcing  its  wings 
against  the  air.  Consequently  it  must  al- 
ways keep  moving  at  a  fairly  high  speed. 

Q. — What  keeps   an  aeroplane  in 
the  air? 

A. — Its  motion,  or  speed,  developed 
constantly  by  an  engine.  If  the  engine 
stops,  the  forward  motion  ceases  and  the 
aeroplane  falls.  By  volplaning,  or  coast- 
ing, the  aviator  can  often  establish  a  for- 
ward-downward course  and  check  the  fall. 

Q. — Are   there   many   varieties   o£ 
aeroplanes  ? 

A. — Several ;  but  all  are  based  upon  the 
same  type.  An  Australian  (Mr.  Har- 
greaves)  may  be  said  to  be  the  man  who 
made  the  aeroplane  possible.  He  invented 
the  box  kite,  and  an  aeroplane  is  just  a 
box  kite,  with  a  powerful  engine  and  pro- 
peller that,  in  a  measure,  may  be  said  to 
take  the  place  of  the  string.  Aeroplanes 
fall  into  two  main  classes — monoplanes 
and  biplanes.  The  former  have  one 
plane  only,  the  latter  two. 


Q. — Has  the  aeroplane  much  influ- 
ence in  war? 

A. — It  has  revolutionized  warfare,  espe- 
cially by  making  surprise  attacks  almost 
impossible.  In  maneuvers  it  has  again 
and  again  brought  opposing  forces  to  an 
absolute  deadlock,  and  in  this  war  it  has 
enabled  both  the  Allies  and  the  Germans 
to  counter  nearly  every  attack.  In  the 
old  days,  a  commander  had  to  rely 
largely  upon  his  intuition  and  knowledge 
of  war ;  he  had  to  risk  regiments  to  ascer- 
tain the  actual  position  of  his  foe,  and 
waste  days  making  feigned  attacks  all 
along  the  line,  until  he  discovered  the 
weak  spot.  Now  the  aeroplane  scout  tells 
him  what  he  wants  to  know,  often  in  a 
few  minutes.  As  Lord  French  said,  we 
now  have  to  play  the  game  of  war  with 
all  the  cards  on  the  table. 

Q. — What  is  a  seaplane? 

A. — It  is  an  aeroplane  fitted  with  floats, 
which  enable  it  to  rest  on  the  water. 
Great  Britain  has  devoted  special  atten- 
tion to  this  type  of  machine,  and  has  more 
of  them  than  any  other  Power.  These 
planes  can  fly  from  the  deck  of  a  war- 
ship. When  they  return  they  alight  on 
the  water,  and  are  hauled  aboard.  The 
Americans  have  perfected  an  aerial 
hydro-aeroplane,  a  light  boat,  with  wings. 
The  British  seaplane  is  a  powerful  ma- 
chine, but  it  cannot  ascend  so  rapidly,  or 
to  such  very  great  heights  as  the  other 
types  of  aeroplanes. 

Q. — Are  there  many  types  of  air- 
ships ? 

A. — A  good  many.  The  most  efficient 
of  all  is  the  Zeppelin.  This  is  what  is 
called  the  rigid  type ;  somewhat  similar  is 
the  Suchette  Lanz.  The  Parseval  is  a 
semi-rigid  airship,  used  principally  for 
scouting,  although  it  can  drop  bombs  if 
required.  Similar  to  it  are  the  Astra- 
Torres,  the  Clement-Bayard,  the  Lebaudy, 
and  the  Gross.  There  are  also  little  dirig- 
ibles, of  the  type  of  the  Alpha,  Beta  and 
Gamma  British  army  airships,  which  ap- 
pear to  be  of  minor  use. 

Q. — What  is  the  cost  of  a  Zeppe- 
lin? 

A. — It  is  not  known  definitely.  Count 
Zeppelin  sold  an  early  one  to  the  German 
Government  for  $125,000.  Great  Britain 
bought  a  semi-rigid  Astra-Torres,  in  1913, 
for  £18,000  ($90,000). 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  is  the  difference  between 
a  Zeppelin  and  a  Parse val? 

A. — Put  simply,  the  difference  betweea 
the  two  is  that  the  first  is  a  rigid  frame- 
work of  aluminum  and  light  steel,  into 
which  a  large  number  of  separate  gas  bags 
are  put.  The  second  is  a  large  gas  bag, 
from  which  a  car  is  suspended.  In  the 
rigid  type  cabins  and  platforms  are  firmly 
attached  to  the  framework,  within  which 
gas  bags  are  stowed ;  several  of  the  latter 
might  be  punctured  and  lose  their  gas 
without  the  airship  falling.  In  the  non- 
rigid  type  the  car  is  suspended  by  wire 
ropes,  and  hangs  beneath  the  gas  enve- 
lope. If  this  is  punctured  seriously  the 
whole  affair  collapses  at  once. 

Q. — Could  Zeppelins  cross  the  sea 
to  bomb  American  cities? 

A. — That  has  been  said  very  often,  but 
it  must  be  remarked  that  there  is  a  great 
mass  of  very  powerful  technical  factors 
against  the  assumption.  The  cruising  ra- 
dius of  a  Zeppelin  is  very  great,  or  can 
be  made  very  great,  but  a  trip  across  the 
Atlantic,  it  must  be  remembered,  also 
involves  a  trip  back  again. 

If  a  great  effect  were  planned,  it  might 
be  assumed  that  the  Germans  would  try 
it,  and  that  possibly  they  would  succeed. 
But  a  single  raid  by  a  single  Zeppelin, 
even  if  successful,  would  not  be  an  effect 
commensurate  with  the  effort  expended. 
To  produce  real  havoc,  a  whole  fleet 
would  be  needed.  This  would,  of  course, 
multiply  the  risks  of  the  adventure  ex- 
ceedingly and  it  is  hardly  possible  that 
the  fleet  should  escape  without  very 
severe  losses. 

The  cruising  radius  of  the  Zeppelins  in 
service  in  1914  was  known  to  be  3,000 
miles  maximum. 

Q. — Could  Zeppelins  ride  out  a  gale 
over  the  Atlantic  ? 

A. — They  would  not  have  to  do  so. 
They  would  probably  merely  need  to  rise 
to  higher  levels  in  the  air  until  they  were 
above  the  storm.  Storms  are  all  of  lim- 
ited extent — that  is,  they  may  seem  pretty 
unlimited  to  the  human  beings  caught  in 
them,  but  geographically  they  rarely 
cover  a  very  big  area ;  and,  as  far  as 
height  is  concerned,  they  may  be  very 
limited  indeed.  People  in  mountain 
country  know  this.  They  often  find  that 
a  climb  of  much  less  than  a  thousand 
feet  will  bring  them  into  a  dead  calm 
whereas  just  below  them  a  veritable  tem- 
pest may  be  beating  the  tree-tops. 


Q. — What  was  the  reason  for  the 
great  Zeppelin  disaster  of 
1917? 

A. — The  Zeppelin  fleet  which  drifted 
helplessly  over  France,  with  the  result 
that  a  number  were  brought  down,  is 
said  to  have  suffered  from  frozen  en- 
gines. The  big  airships  had  risen  to  enor- 
mous altitudes  to  prevent  observation  or 
attack  by  aeroplanes,  and  the  intense  cold 
completely  froze  up  their  motors,  accord- 
ing to  report. 

Q. — Did  a  very  large  Zeppelin  come 
down  in  France? 

A. — One  Zeppelin,  L-49,  which  came 
down  at  Dammartin,  was  fully  as  long 
as  an  average  ocean  steamship.  It  meas- 
ured 643  feet  and  had  about  as  much 
"beam"  as  most  ships  of  that  size,  for 
its  diameter  was  about  one-sixth  of  its 
length,  which  would  make  it  all  of  a  hun- 
dred feet  wide  at  its  widest  part — truly  a 
monstrous  thing  to  ride  the  solitudes  of 
air  I 

It  carried  a  large  quantity  of  fuel  oil 
for  its  motors,  of  which  there  were  five, 
each  able  to  produce  240  horsepower. 

Q. — How  much  gas  could  the  L-4Q 
carry  ? 

A. — According  to  the  French  examiners 
and  experts,  this  type  carried  18  gas-bag 
reservoirs  within  the  metal  skeleton  of 
the  hull,  and  the  quantity  was  55,000  cubic 
meters  of  hydrogen  gas,  enough  to  lift 
the  twelve-ton  ship  with  all  its  additional 
tons  of  weight  in  the  form  of  supplies, 
bombs,  etc. 

This  Zeppelin  carried  a  crew  of  about 
20  men  and  was  armed  like  a  naval  vessel, 
with  machine  guns  and  automatic  guns 
for  use  against  aeroplanes,  etc. 

Q. — Why  did  the  L-4g  have  five 
motors? 

A. — Two  of  them  were  used  purely 
as  auxiliary  motors,  or,  rather,  as  emer- 
gency motors.  They  were  rarely  operat- 
ed, but  were  in  effect  spare  motors  in 
case  of  accident. 

Q.— What  is  meant  by  the  "roof" 
of  a  Zeppelin? 

A. — It  is  technical  slang  for  altitude- 
rising  ability.  When  an  aerial  expert 
says  that  the  "roof"  of  such  and  such  an 
airship  is  4,000  feet,  he  means  that  it  can 
rise  4,000  feet  into  the  air  at  most. 

The    "roof"   of    the    original   Zeppelins 


Man  in  the  Air 


was  probably  about  a  mile.  After  the 
war  began,  we  found  that  Zeppelins  had 
gained  ability  and  could  navigate  up  to 
6,000  feet  and  more.  It  is  said  now  that 
the  very  latest  type  of  this  rigid  airship 
can  rise  and  remain  under  control  in 
heights  ranging  from  15,000  to  20,000 
feet  above  the  surface  of  the  earth. 

Q. — Why  cannot  every  airship  rise 
to  such  heights? 

A. — Because  of  the  meteorological  con- 
ditions. The  highly  rarefied  air  at  such 
altitudes  makes  two  immense  difficulties : 
(i)  The  air  being  thinner  and  lighter,  the 
airship  (whether  gas-lifted  or  engine- 
lifted)  has  far  less  support  than  it  has  m 
the  dense  air  nearer  the  surface  of  earth. 
In  other  words,  it  becomes  heavier  with 
every  foot  of  ascension  into  these  rarefied 
regions  of  silence.  Even  the  propellers 
lose  thrust  heavily.  All  the  conditions 
are  severe.  The  flying  machine  labors 
like  the  men  in  it,  whose  lungs  and  hearts 
and  blood-vessels  are  all  strained.  (2) 
The  immense  rarefaction  and  the  intense 
cold  combine  to  destroy  all  the  equilib- 
rium of  the  motor,  which  is  an  engine 
built  for  a  certain  range  of  pressures. 

Q. — Is  the  Zeppelin  really  a  fail- 
ure? 

A.— Not  by  any  means.  It  has  proved 
a  failure  in  that  direction  which  appealed 
the  most  to  popular  imagination — as  ^an 
offensive  dreadnaught  of  the  air,  raining 
destruction  down  on  hostile  lines  and  an- 
nihilating armies  and  their  supplies  and 
ordnance.  As  an  offensive  force  it  has 
failed  largely  because  the  aeroplane,  with 
its  superior  mobility,  has  proved  itself  a 
deadly  enemy  to  it,  attacking  it  in  its  very 
vulnerable  part — the  gas  envelope. 

But  though  it  is  truly  a  failure  as  a 
fighting  machine,  it  has  remained  as  an 
invaluable  war-machine.  Only  the  naval 
men  of  Great  Britain  know  how  tre- 
mendously difficult  the  Zeppelin  fleet  of 
Germany  has  made  their  work — not  by 
attacking  them,  but  by  watching  day  and 
night,  cruising  high  beyond  reach  and 
spying  out  every  corner  of  sea.  The  Ger- 
man Navy  has  been  at  least  doubly  secure 
because  of  the  endless  watch  and  ward  by 
its  Zeppelins — a  guard  that  motor-lifted 
aeroplanes  could  not  possibly  maintain 
with  such  utter  perfection. 

Q. — Why  has  there  been  so  little 
progress  in  developing  the 
dirigible  airship? 

A. — The  chief  difficulty — that  of  over- 
coming the  effect  of  varying  temperatures 


— remained  long  unsolved.  The  rays  of 
the  sun,  appearing  suddenly  on  a  cloudy 
day  or  growing  warmer  with  the  approach 
of  noon,  would  expand  the  gas,  send  the 
airship  to  higher  altitudes,  and  possibly 
burst  the  bag.  Disappearance  of  the  sun 
or  the  approach  of  night  would  contract 
the  gas  and  cause  the  airship  to  descend. 

Q. — How  did  Count  Zeppelin  suc- 
ceed where  other  airship  in- 
ventors failed? 

A. — He  covered  his  gas  bag  (or  bags, 
there  being  as  many  as  eighteen  in  later 
models)  with  an  outer  envelope  held  rigid 
by  a  framework  of  aluminum,  thus  keep- 
ing the  sun's  rays  from  the  gas  bag. 

Q. — Where  does  the  crew  of  a  Zep- 
pelin sleep? 

A. — Within  the  framework  is  a  long 
passageway  for  the  crew,  a  mere  board- 
walk nine  inches  wide  composed  of 
wooden  slats  separated  one  from  another 
by  several  inches.  Along  this  passage- 
way hangs  a  series  of  hammocks.  This  is 
where  the  crew  is  quartered. 

Q. — What  color  is  a  Zeppelin? 

A. — The  under  half  is  painted  a  coal 
black  to  make  it  invisible  at  night,  the 
upper  surface  of  the  hull  is  painted 
white  and  gray  to  make  it  blend  with  a 
cloud  so  as  to  make  it  difficult  to  be  seen 
from  an  aeroplane. 

Q. — What  is  the  speed  of  a  Zeppe- 
lin? 

•  A. — The  speed  of  the  present  Zeppelin 
is  never  less  than  60  miles  an  hour  and 
may  be  developed  as  high  as  100  miles 
an  hour.  Speed  saves  the  Zeppelin  from 
destruction  in  a  gale.  Speed  has  been 
obtained  by  trebling  the  size  of  a  Zep- 
pelin and  by  applying  the  lessons  learned 
in  developing  the  I30-mile-an-hour  fight- 
ing aeroplane. 

Q. — When  was  the  first  Zeppelin 
raid  made  over  England? 

A. — Zeppelins  flew  over  the  British 
Isles  for  the  first  time  on  January  19, 
1915.  Nine  bombs  were  thrown  at  Yar- 
mouth and  nine  persons  were  killed.  The 
result  of  the  raid  was  an  immediate  in- 
crease in  voluntary  recruiting.  London 
was  first  bombed  by  Zeppelins  on  May 
31,  1915,  and  six  people  killed.  From  the 
date  of  the  first  raid  to  the  middle  of 
March,  1917,  about  forty  Zeppelin  raids 
were  made  upon  England. 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q.— Has     America     developed     a 
standard  motor? 

A. — Yes.  It  is  known  as  the  "Liberty 
Engine."  The  building  of  this  engine  was 
no  inventing  job.  It  was  built  to  be 
standardized,  and  was  a  combination  of 
all  approved  things.  It  was  made  so  that 
it  may  be  assembled  anywhere  and  so 
that  each  part  of  one  engine  is  inter- 
changeable with  each  similar  part  of  any 
other  engine. 

The  ordinary  automobile  engine  does 
not  run  wide  open  at  full  speed  more  than 
10  to  15  per  cent  of  its  life.  The  Liberty 
engine  must  run  at  full  speed,  wide  open, 
all  the  time.  It  was  designed  so  that 
there  shall  be  a  minimum  of  waste  and 
of  supplies  needed,  with  a  maximum  of 
efficiency. 

Q. — What  is  the  horsepower  of  the 
Liberty  motor? 

A. — The  Liberty  motor  develops  400 
horsepower  at  1,625  revolutions  on  a  total 
weight  of  only  800  pounds,  less  than  2 
pounds  for  each  produced  horsepower. 
This  is  an  exceedingly  excellent  showing 
as  the  celebrated  British  Rolls-Royce, 
which  weighs  950  pounds,  has  never  de- 
veloped more  than  360  horsepower. 

Q. — What  is  the  life  of  an  aero- 
plane engine? 

A. — Experts  say  that  it  is  rarely  more 
than  loo  hours.  That  is,  it  is  necessary 
to  substitute  some  new  part  after  the 
engine  has  been  running  at  full  speed  for 
loo  hours. 

An  idea  of  the  complicated  mechanism 
of  the  aeroplane  may  be  gained  by  know- 
ing that  there  are  921  steel  stampings,  798 
forgings  cast,  and  276  turn-buckles  in 
a  single  machine.  In  a  single  battle- 
plane there  are  23,000  screws.  Seventy 
per  cent  of  spare  parts  must  be  kept  on 
hand  for  every  battle-plane. 

Q. — Has  the  war  evolved  a  distinct 
type  of  aeroplane? 

A. — The  biplane  has  become  almost 
supreme.  The  birdlike  monoplane  has 
practically  disappeared.  More  general 
use  of  the  triplane  is  a  possible  develop- 
ment of  the  near  future.  Improvements 
are  constant,  and  new  models  soon  be- 
come out  of  date.  Aeroplanes  are  so  fre- 
quently brought  down  within  the  oppos- 
ing lines  that  secrets,  in  construction  are 
few.  Improvements  are 'in  the  line  of 
speed  and  responsiveness,  rather  than  me- 
chanical safety,  for  the  greatest,  danger,  js 
.from  enemy  aviator.s. 


Q. — What  are  the  principal  aero- 
plane models  in  general  use? 

A. —  (i)  The  one-seated  fighter,  carry- 
ing a  fixed  machine  gun  in  front  of  the 
aviator  and  a  pivotal  machine  gun  slightly 
above  him.  (2)  The  two-passenger  re- 
connaissance or  "general  purpose"  ma- 
chine, with  pilot  and  gunner  or  observer. 
(3)  The  large,  twin-engine  bombing  ma- 
chine, carrying  three  or  more  men. 

Q. — How  many  types  of  aeroplanes 
are  used  in  the  American  army? 

A. — Aeroplane  needs  for  war  purposes 
may  be  divided  thus,  as  experience  has 
shown :  First,  training  machines ;  sec- 
ond, advanced  training  machines ;  third, 
battle-planes ;  and  fourth,  heavy  bombing 
planes. 

The  training  machines,  for  the  purpose 
of  aviators,  are  low-powered  machines — 
that  is,  the  engines  are  of  from  one  hun- 
dred to  one  hundred  and  twenty-five 
horsepower ;  the  machines  are  smaller 
than  the  battle-planes  and  more  agile — 
especially  the  advanced  training  types. 
The  men  learn  on  these.  These  machines 
do  not  use  Liberty  engines.  At  present 
a  four-  and  an  eight-cylinder  engine  is 
being  installed  in  them,  which  answers 
every  requirement. 

Q. — How  can  a  photograph  from 
an  aeroplane  make  a  picture 
that  anybody  can  understand? 

A. — It  doesn't.  Very  few  persons  can 
understand  it.  Aerial  military  photog- 
raphy has  introduced  a  class  of  specialists 
in  "reading"  these  photographs.  To  the 
ordinary  human  being  they  might  be  as 
meaningless  as  a  picture  puzzle.  There 
are  hundreds  of  tiny  characters  in  a  mili- 
tary aero-photograph  that  look  utterly  un- 
important to  the  ordinary  person,  but  that 
indicate  such  vastly  important  things  as 
bomb-proofs,  guns,  ammunition  mounds, 
etc.,  to  the  expert. 

Q. — What  type  of  camera  is  used 
for  photographing  from  aero- 
planes? 

A. — The  photographic  aeroplane  merely 
ascends  to  a  given  point,  when,  by  press- 
ing a  button  or  pulling  a  string,  the  cam- 
era is  set  in  action  automatically.  Some 
photographic  planes  carry  several  cam- 
eras attached  in  such  positions  that  sev- 
eral groups  of  pictures  may  be  taken  at 
once.  The  exhaust  from  the  motor  some- 
times is  used  to  operate  cameras  that  take 
rapid  successive  ,  pictures.  .Photographs 


Man  in  the  Air 


73 


that  are  perfectly  clear  have  been  taken 
from  a  height  of  three  and  a  half  miles. 
By  means  of  color  and  light  nitration, 
certain  things,  often  invisible  to  the  eye, 
are  made  to  stand  out  sharply  in  photo- 
graphs of  one  especial  kind. 

The  aviator-observer  may  not  be  able 
to  see  such  objects  as  men  lying  still  upon 
the  ground,  wrapped  in  camouflage  coats, 
but,  by  means  of  light  filtration,  the  cam- 
era sharply  reveals  them. 

Q. — How  are  aeroplanes  able  to  fly 
at  night? 

A. — Navigation  lights  affixed  to  the 
edge  of  the  lower  plane  and  under  con- 
trol of  the  pilot  are  used  for  flying  at 
night.  The  lights  are  also  invaluable  in 
squadron  formation  as  a  guide  to  other 
machines  in  the  group.  German  air  raid- 
ers use  variegated  lights  for  signaling  be- 
tween different  units. 

Q. — How  can  an  aeroplane  effect  a 
safe  landing  at  night? 

A. — This  is  one  of  the  greatest  prob- 
lems an  aviator  has  to  solve,  and  in  the 
early  days  of  the  war  many  disasters 
overtook  the  men  who  went  up  at  night, 
owing  to  the  bad  landings.  It  is  said 
that  the  Germans  solved  the  problem  in 
an  ingenious  manner.  A  pit  was  dug  in 
the  center  of  the  aerodrome  and  covered 
over  with  a  thick  sheet  of  glass  to  with- 
stand the  weight  of  an  aeroplane,  should 
its  wheels  pass  over  it.  A  powerful  white 
light  was  placed  in  the  pit. 

At  a  distance  of  about  250  feet  from 
this  light,  and  also  sunk  in  the  ground, 
were  placed  four  red  lights  arranged  in 
relation  to  the  cardinal  points  of  the 
compass.  Each  of  these  red  lights  was 
connected  by  underground  wires  to  a 
wind-vane,  mounted  on  a  mast  or  tower  at 
some  convenient  point. 

At  night  the  central  light  glowed  con- 
stantly, while  the  only  red  light  that 
showed  was  the  one  in  the  direction  of 
the  wind  that  happened  to  be  blowing, 
thns  indicating  to  the  pilot  the  wind  con- 
ditions where  the  landing  was  to  be 
made. 

Aviators  landing  in  unlighted  zones  at 
night  undertake  excessive  risks.  Aero- 
plane pilots  often  drop  flare-lights  to  il- 
luminate the  ground  on  which  'they  want 
to  descend.  Night  flying  is  avoided  as 
much  as  possible  by  all  the  belligerents. 

Q. — What  are  anti-aircraft  guns? 

A. — They  are  guns  so  mounted  that 
\the.y  may  be  pointed  upward  .to  deliver 


direct  fire  against  objects  in  the  sky. 
In  the  first  stages  of  the  great  war  they 
were  very  simple,  often  being  merely  im- 
provised. After  a  period  of  experience, 
they  became  more  and  more  specialized, 
until  they  acquired  a  distinct  status  of 
their  own,  being  fitted  with  unique  ap- 
pliances and  firing  ammunition  quite  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  other  guns. 

Q. — What  is  the  distinctive  ammu- 
nition? 

A. — Shrapnel-shells  that  can  ascend  to 
great  heights,  with  smoke-appliances  so 
that  the  gunners  could  note  exactly 
where  the  shells  exploded,  and  thus  cor- 
rect their  aim  continually. 

Q. — Were  these  guns  successful? 

A. — They  were  extremely  successful  in 
forcing  aircraft  to  fly  high  and  avoid 
zones  of  aircraft  fire.  They  did  not  de- 
stroy aircraft  nearly  so  well.  The  best 
enemy  of  aircraft  proved  to  be  other  air- 
craft. 

Q. — Did  anti-aircraft  guns  not  de- 
stroy many  flying  machines? 

A. — They  certainly  destroyed  a  num- 
ber. But  it  has  been  estimated  by  experts 
at  the  front  that  an  average  of  6,ooq  shots 
has  to  be  expended  for  each  aircraft 
brought  down. 

Q. — How  do  gunners  find  the 
range  of  an  aeroplane? 

A. — With  an  instrument  called  a  tele- 
meter. It  gives  the  exact  altitude  of 
the  aircraft,  and  is  as  simple  as  it  is  in- 
genious. There  are  two  apertures — one 
for  each  eye.  In  one  the  aircraft  is  seen 
right  side  up;  in  the  other  it  is  inverted. 
By  turning  a  thumbscrew  the  two  images 
are  brought  together.  When  one  is  su- 
perimposed exactly  over  the  other  the  al- 
titude is  shown  in  meters,  or  feet,  on  a 
dial. 

Q. — Is  the  aviation  service  not  the 
most  dangerous  of  any  in  this 
war? 

A. — It  was  so  considered  when  the  war 
began.  It  seems  likely,  too,  that  in  the 
first  months  the  mortality  among  avia- 
tors was  enormous.  But  after  a  few 
years,  greatly  to  the  surprise  of  military 
men,  the  aviators  had  developed  such 
science  and  skill  that  instead  of  being 
the  most  dangerous,  aviation  actually  had 
become  .the  least  dangerous  service  in  the 
.war. 


74 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Does  this  mean  that  few  avi- 
ators are  killed? 

A. — No.  It  means  only  that  in  pro- 
portion to  the  numbers  engaged  in  the 
work,  the  losses  are  small.  In  percent- 
ages, infantry  suffers  the  most  casual- 
ties (just  as  it  always  has  done  in  every 
war).  Artillery  comes  next  in  percent- 
age of  casualty ;  the  medical  corps  comes 
third  and  aviation  comes  fourth. 

This  fact  has  now  been  so  well  es- 
tablished that  early  in  1918  General 
Pershing,  commander  of  the  American 
expeditionary  force  in  France,  recom- 
mended that  the  extra  pay  for  aviators, 
based  on  the  theory  of  extra-hazardous 
service,  be  discontinued. 

Q. — Has  anything  new  happened 
to  make  the  aviator  safe? 

A. — No,  nothing  new,  unless  we  can 
call  vastly  increased  skill  and  science  new. 
The  aviators  have  learned  how  to  beat 
the  anti-aircraft  gun,  for  one  thing. 
For  purposes  of  destroying  aeroplanes,  all 
guns  so  far  devised  have  been  compara- 
tive failures.  They  are  immensely  use- 
ful for  forcing  aircraft  to  fly  high  and 
thus  they  hamper  them  in  observation 
and  bomb-dropping;  but  as  instruments 
of  damage  they  have  not  proved  them- 
selves. 

Thus  the  only  dangerous  opponent  that 
the  aeroplane  has  to-day  in  war  is  another 
aeroplane.  But,  except  for  the  extraor- 
dinary exploits  of  extraordinary  individ- 
uals, and  for  the  distinct  fighting  clan  of 
the  service,  the  average  army  aviator's 
chief  business  is  not  to  fight  but  to  scout. 
Therefore,  though  there  are  very  many 
fierce  combats  in  the  air,  almost  daily, 
the  regular  daily  work  of  aviation  is  not 
combative. 

Q. — Are   there   different   branches 
of  military  aviation  service  ? 

A. — There  are  four  large  general  serv- 
ices nowadays  in  military  aviation — ex- 
ploration, observation,  bombardment  and 
combat.  There  are  aeroplanes  whose  sole 
duty  is  to  observe,  others  who  protect  the 
observer  from  hostile  attacks,  others  who 
are  bombarders,  etc.  The  Lafayette  Esca- 
drille,  for  example,  was  mainly  a  bom- 
bardment fleet,  dropping  bombs  upon  the 
enemy's  munition  depots  and  railway 
lines  before  an  attack. 

Q. — How  fast  does  a  fighting  aero- 
plane fly? 

A. — The  swift  single-seat  fighting  ma- 
chines of  the  Allies  at  present  are  flying 


from  125  to  140  miles  an  hour.  Each  is 
armed  with  one  or  two  machine  guns, 
rigidly  fastened  to  the  aeroplane,  and  ca- 
pable of  shooting  only  in  the  direction 
of  the  axis  of  the  machine. 

Q. — How  does  a  fighter  attack? 

A.— One  of  the  common  maneuvers 
consists  of  diving  from  a  sufficient  dis- 
tance to  about  300  feet  behind  the  adver- 
sary; dropping  about  60  feet  lower,  and 
coming  into  position  for  firing  by  an  up- 
ward dash.  If  the  enemy  has  suspected 
nothing,  it  is  sure  death  for  him. 

Q. — Why  do  the  Allies  not  send 
aeroplanes  over  Essen  to  de- 
stroy Krupps? 

A. — Presumably  they  have  tried,  and, 
presumably,  Krupps  is  too  well  guarded. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  this  is  a  war  of 
munitions  rather  than  of  men,  it  is,  in- 
deed, amazing  that  far  more  determined 
efforts  have  not  been  made  to  cripple 
Germany  by  destroying  Krupps.  It  must 
be  noted,  however,  that  Germany  has  been 
equally  unsuccessful  in  destroying  the  mu- 
nitions works  of  the  Allies. 

Q. — Why  do  not  the  Allies  resort 
to  reprisals  upon  German 
cities? 

A. — There  is  much  opposition  to  re- 
prisals in  the  Allied  countries.  More- 
over, it  is  much  more  difficult  for  the  Al- 
lies to  bomb  German  cities  than  it  is  for 
the  Germans  to  bomb  England,  because 
traveling  the  same  distance  which  the 
Germans  travel  from  their  submarine  base 
in  Belgium  to  England  would  bring  the 
Allies'  aviators  only  as  far  as  Belgium 
or  northern  France.  They  have,  however, 
dropped  bombs  upon  Dresden  and  Frank- 
fort with  far-reaching  effect,  both  in  the 
destruction  of  property  and  the  moral  ef- 
fect upon  the  people. 

Q. — Are  bombs  aimed,  or  merely 
dropped,  from  aircraft? 

A. — Much  progress  has  been  made  in 
bomb-sighting.  The  chief  difficulty  is 
to  establish  a  true  vertical  direction. 
Modern  bomb-dropping  machines  are 
equipped  with  instruments  not  only  for 
sighting,  but  for  determining  allowances 
necessary  for  speed,  height,  wind,  and  so 
forth. 

Q. — How  much  bombing  material 
can  a  Zeppelin  carry? 

A. — The  Zeppelin  captured  by  the 
French  had  provision  for  eighteen  120- 


Man  in  the  Air 


75 


lb.  bombs — more  than  a  ton.  When  a 
greater  bomb-load  is  carried  (often  as 
much  as  four  tons),  fuel-load  is  sacrificed 
and  safety  impaired. 

Q. — How  can  aviators  safely  have 
glass  windows  and  goggles? 

A. — In  order  to  keep  fragments  of  glass 
from  injuring  the  pilot  in  case  of  acci- 
dent, triplex  glass  is  used  for  windows 
and  goggles.  In  a  recent  accident  where 
an  aeroplane,  going  ninety  miles  an  hour, 
struck  a  tree,  the  triplex  glass  window  did 
not  throw  off  a  single  fragment. 

Q. — What  changes  did  1917  bring 
in  aeroplanes? 

A. — The  most  important  change  is  the 
growth  in  size.  Even  the  single-seater 
fast  fighting  machines  are  being  built 
larger  to  accommodate  a  larger  engine 
with  water-cooling  apparatus,  which  also 
necessitates  a  greater  wing  area  in  order 
that  the  machine  may  be  slowed  up 
enough  for  safe  landing.  The  fighting 
aeroplanes  are  beginning  to  have  two  ma- 
chine guns  timed  to  fire  between  the  pro- 
peller blades,  and  other  guns  to  be  fired 
at  various  angles.  The  slower  reconnais- 
sance type  has  also  increased  its  engine 
power.  The  twin-engine  machine  is  more 
and  more  used.  Both  the  Germans  and 
the  Allies  have  the  pilot  in  the  front 
cockpit  handling  one  or  two  synchronized 
guns,  with  a  gunner  placed  in  the  after- 
seat  managing  a  gun  on  a  turn-table. 

Q. — Do  aeroplane  guns  really  fire 
through  the  propeller? 

A.— Yes.  The  gun  is  regulated  by  a 
wonderfully  ingenious  yet  simple  appara- 
tus that  times  its  shots  so  exactly  that 
each  bullet  will  surely  pass  between  the 
blades  of  the  propeller,  though  the  latter 
is  whirling  as  swiftly  as  it  can  go. 

Q. — What  is  the  height  record  for 
an  aeroplane? 

A. — In  1918  Lieutenant  Papa,  of  the 
Italian  Army,  reached  an  altitude  of  23,- 
200  feet  in  a  flight  lasting  one  hour  and 
five  minutes.  A  passenger  accompanied 
the  operator.  He  was  prevented  from  at- 
taining a  still  higher  altitude  only  by  a 
lack  of  oxygen.  The  same  pilot  broke 
the  record  in  May,  1917,  with  a  flight  at- 
taining 21,000  feet. 

Q. — Why  has  Paris  been  so  little 
attacked  by  air-raiders? 

A. — Many  various  explanations  have 
been  given  by  speculatively  inclined  minds. 


One  explanation  was  that  the  French 
country  around  the  capital,  and  the  capital 
itself,  were  so  well  defended  that  an  at- 
tack on  Paris  was  more  hazardous  than 
the  trip  across  the  Channel  or  the  North 
Sea.  This  explanation,  however,  was 
rather  weakened  when  the  Germans  made 
a  raid  on  Paris,  January  30,  1918,  with 
four  air-squadrons,  according  to  French 
reports,  which  dropped,  according  to  the 
German  reports,  fourteen  tons  of  bombs. 
The  German  report  added  that  the  raid 
was  in  reprisal  for  the  air  raids  over 
German  cities,  which  had  been  conducted 
a  short  time  before  by  French  and  British 
fliers,  and,  according  to  some  American 
newspapers,  by  some  American  fliers. 
Thus  this  raid  appeared  to  indicate  that 
the  Germans  could  raid  Paris  when  they 
so  determined.  This  gave  some  strength 
to  the  previously  offered  suggestion  that 
the  Germans  refrained  from  raids  on 
Paris  as  a  matter  of  political  policy. 

Q. — What  is  a  kite  balloon  and 
what  is  it  used  for? 

A. — Kite  balloons  are  large  balloons 
controlled  from  the  ground  by  ropes. 
They  are  used  for  observation  purposes 
on  the  fighting  fronts,  and  by  the  Allied 
navies  in  detecting  U-boats.  The  balloon 
is  attached  to  the  deck  of  a  trawler,  and 
the  observer,  in  his  basket,  can  easily  spot 
a  submarine  even  when  it  is  below  the 
surface  of  the  water. 

Q. — Have  airplanes  ever  made  use 
of  smoke  devices? 

A. — Yes.  The  big  German  Gotha  aero- 
planes, which  raid  England  from  time  to 
time,  are  equipped  with  apparatus  for 
producing  smoke  clouds,  which  are  emit- 
ted whenever  the  raiders  are  seriously 
threatened  by  anti-aircraft  artillery.  As 
the  smoke  is  white  and  practically  of  the 
same  formation  as  the  clouds  overhead,  it 
is  a  hard  matter  for  the  gunners  below 
to  find  the  machines. 

Q. — Where  did  the  aeroplane  first 
prove  its  effectiveness? 

A. — First  mention  is  made  by  Sir  John 
French  at  the  Aisne,  in  a  report  to  the 
War  Office  in  the  first  week  of  Septem- 
ber, 1914.  He  says,  "Sir  David  Hender- 
son and  the  Royal  Flying  Corps  have 
proved  their  incalculable  value." 

Q. — What  is  the  status  of  airmen 
caught  while  dropping  printed 
propaganda? 

A. — There  is  no  specific  rule  in  inter- 
national law  or  the  rules  of  war  to  govern 


Questions  and  Answers 


the  case  exactly.  The  circulation  of 
propaganda  in  enemy  lines  by  air-route  is 
entirely  new.  In  previous  wars  there  was 
the  same  effort  to  circulate  propaganda 
among  enemy  soldiers  and  population,  but 
it  was  attended  with  such  difficulty  that 
it  did  not  reach  great  magnitude. 

Q. — What  was  done  in  previous 
wars  to  men  caught  circulating 
such  matter? 

A. — Usually  the  case  was  simple,  be- 
cause the  men  who  tried  to  spread  it  had 
to  enter  enemy  lines  in  disguise,  and  thus 
were  subject  to  execution  as  spies.  If, 
however,  a  soldier  should  have  stolen  into 
enemy  lines  in  his  uniform  with  such 
propaganda,  it  might  fairly  be  claimed 
that  he  should  be  treated  like  a  soldier 
attacking  an  enemy  line  with  weapons. 
But,  presumably,  his  captors  would  not 
willingly  take  that  view  of  it. 

Q. — Why  is  castor  oil  important  to 
the  success  of  aviation? 

A. — It  has  been  found  to  be  the  only 
practical  lubricant,  and  it  was  necessary 
for  the  United  States  to  bring  a  cargo  of 
castor  beans  all  the  way  from  Bombay, 
India,  to  speed  up  the  industry  of  pro- 
ducing castor  oil  in  sufficient  quantities 
to  carry  out  the  big  aviation  program. 

Q. — Did  the  Kaiser  have  a  narrow 
escape  from  a  bomb  from  an 
aeroplane? 

A. — Yes.  While  the  Kaiser  was  watch- 
ing the  assault  on  Ypres  from  Thielt  in 
Belgium,  a  British  aeroplane  dropped  a 
bomb  near  his  position,  killing  several 
members  of  his  staff.  There  was  no 
knowledge  of  his  presence  there  on  the 
part  of  the  aviator. 

Q. — How  does  an  aeroplane  rise 
from  a  ship's  deck? 

A. — Aeroplane-carrying  warships  are 
provided  with  a  skid-way  built  as  a  super- 
structure over  the  decks  and  arranged  in 
such  a  way  that  it  does  not  interfere  with 
the  guns.  Usually  it  is  astern.  The  most 
modern  type  of  airship-carrying  vessel  in 
our  navy  is  thus  designed. 

The  aeroplane  is  lifted  to  the  skidway, 
where  it  rests  on  a  sliding  platform  or 
sledge.  The  naval  aeroplane,  being  a 
hydro-aeroplane,  is  practically  a  flying 
boat,  and,  therefore,  has  no  wheels  with 
which  it  may  start  itself  from  the  sur- 
face. Besides,  the  size  of  a  ship  is  not 
sufficient  to  give  a  good  start.  There- 


fore, instead  of  projecting  itself  forward 
with  its  own  engine  power,  as  the  land- 
plane  does,  the  naval  plane  is  shot  from 
the  ship  by  a  catapult,  which  sends  the 
sledge  whizzing  into  the  air  with  the 
plane  on  it.  As  the  flying  machine  rises, 
the  platform  falls  into  the  sea,  to  be 
picked  up  by  the  sailors. 

Q. — How  does  a  naval  plane  return 
to  the  ship?  Can  it  land  on 
deck? 

A. — No.  It  returns  as  near  to  the  ship 
as  possible,  and  then  glides  to  the  water, 
where  it  floats  on  its  pontoons  or  boats. 
Then  it  motors  on  the  surface  to  the  side 
of  the  ship.  Tackles  and  purchases  are 
lowered  with  sailors,  who  fasten  the  plane 
into  a  sling  and  the  whole  apparatus,  avia- 
tors and  all,  is  hoisted  aboard  and  swung 
where  it  belongs. 

Q. — What  is  the  reason  for  the 
shortage  of  spruce  lumber? 

A. — Spruce  has  been  found  to  be  the 
only  lumber  with  sufficient  strength  and 
lightness  for  aeroplanes.  Uncle  Sam  has 
found  it  necessary  to  take  over  the  entire 
spruce  output  and  has  been  obliged  to  go 
into  the  forests  himself  with  lumber 
squadrons  of  many  thousand  men  to  get 
out  sufficient  trees  to  build  the  thousands 
of  aeroplanes  now  needed  for  the  West- 
ern front. 

Q. — Is  there  no  substitute  for 
spruce? 

A. — Up  to  this  time  no  satisfactory  sub- 
stitute has  been  secured  for  spruce  wood 
for  the  frames  of  the  fuselage,  the  wings, 
the  struts,  and  so  on.  It  answers  the  pur- 
pose better  than  any  other,  resists  shocks 
with  greater  strength,  has  a  greater  all- 
round  capability  than  any  other  wood  or 
metal  that  has  as  yet  been  tried. 

Q. — What  responsible  agency  has 
the  American  Government  for 
aeroplane  production? 

A. — The  Aircraft  Production  Board, 
headed  by  Howard  E.  Coffin,  a  part  of 
the  Council  of  National  Defense.  This 
board  works  in  consultation  with  the 
Army  and  Navy  Boards  on  designs  and 
specifications.  Its  chief  function  is  to 
produce  a  maximum  output  of  types  de- 
sired by  the  government.  It  also  equips 
with  machines  the  government  schools 
and  the  training  fields,  which  educate 
6,000  aviators  a  year. 


Man  in  the  Air  77 

Q. — Could  the  Germans  send  aero-  Q. — Is  there  much  bombing  from 

planes     from     submarines     to  the  air? 

bomb  the  United  States?  A.— The  British  War  Office  reported 

that  in  January,  1918,  the  Germans 

A. — No  attempt,  apparently,  has  been  dropped  1,482  bombs  in  the  area  occupied 

made  by  the  enemy  to  combine  air-raids  by  British  troops  in  France.  In  the  same 

with  the  submarine.  An  aeroplane  which  period  British  aviators  dropped  7,653 

might  be  used  by  the  Germans  for  this  bombs  in  the  enemy  areas.  The  Germans 

purpose  is  the  "Brandenburg  tractor  bi-  dropped  only  221  bombs  in  the  daytime, 

plane,"  a  standard  seaplane,  built  accord-  while  the  British  dropped  5,900  between 

ing  to  special  German  plans.  sunrise  and  sunset. 


OUR  NAVY 


Q. — How   many   ships   are   in  the 
American  Navy? 

A. — We  had  more  than  one  thousand 
within  seven  months  after  America  de- 
clared war.  This  was  an  expansion  from 
a  navy  of  300  vessels,  which  we  had  in 
1916.  Of  course  we  reckon  in  every  type 
of  ship  in  this  aggregate,  from  the  super- 
dreadnaught  type  to  the  submarine  chas- 
ers and  scouting  craft. 

The  vessels  under  construction  at  the 
end  of  1917  were  800  in  number,  of  which 
425  were  large  craft  (ranging  from  all- 
big-gun  ships  to  destroyers)  and  350  were 
fast  types  of  submarine  chasers. 

Q. — How  many  men  had  the  Navy 
before  the  war? 

A. — On  the  day  when  war  was  declared 
there  were  64,680  enlisted  men  in  the 
Navy;  in  March,  1918,  there  were  150,000, 
the  total  number  authorized  being  165,000. 

In  addition  there  were  more  than  49,000 
enlisted  men  in  the  Naval  Reserve  force, 
7,000  in  the  Hospital  Corps,  16,000  naval 
volunteers,  and  about  5,000  members  of 
the  coast  guard  in  service — a  total  oi 
about  225,000  men. 

The  Marine  Corps  has  been  more  than 
doubled,  there  being  about  33,000  men  and 
officers  in  service,  as  compared  with  13,- 
266  enlisted  men  and  426  commissioned 
officers  in  April,  1917. 

Q. — What  was  our  naval  rank  in 
1914? 

A. — Third  among  the  great  Powers  in 
all-big-gun  ships.  The  navies  stood : 
Great  Britain,  Germany,  United  States, 
France,  Japan,  Russia,  Italy,  Austria, 
Spain,  Brazil,  Argentine,  Chile. 

Q. — Did  we  compare  at  all  in  1914 
with  Germany  in  big  ships? 

A. — Our  Navy,  on  July  I,  1914,  included 
these  completed  ships  in  service :  Eight 
dreadnaught  battleships,  22  predread- 
naughts,  25  cruisers,  51  torpedo-boat  de- 
stroyers, 13  torpedo  boats,  and  30  sub- 
marines. We  had  at  that  date  a  naval 
strength  of  66,273  officers  and  enlisted 
men. 

At  the  outbreak  of  war  the  German 
fleet  had  28  dreadnaughts  built  and  build- 
ing, 20  older  battleships,  55  cruisers,  154 
torpedo  craft,  and  45  submarines. 


Q. — Were  we  very  inferior  navally 
to  England  and  Germany? 

A. — Decidedly  so.  In  warship  tonnage 
we  stood  as  follows : 

Great  Britain 2,158,256 

Germany 951.713 

United  States   774,353 

France  665,748 

Japan    519,640 

Italy 285,460 

Russia  270,861 

Austria-Hungary  221,526 

Q. — How  many  German  dread- 
naughts  were  actually  afloat  in 
1914? 

A. — It  is  hard  to  say  exactly,  because 
there  is  always  some  uncertainty  about 
ships  actually  afloat  and  ships  nearing 
completion.  Sometimes  naval  estimates 
carry  all  ships  (completed,  partly  com- 
pleted and  even  contemplated)  to  show 
full  strength.  At  other  times,  to  conceal 
full  strength,  they  show  only  the  ships 
actually  afloat  and  even  of  these  they 
show  only  the  undoubtedly  first-class 
ones,  relegating  older  ones  to  a  second 
line.  An  apparently  conservative  list  in- 
dicates that  when  war  was  declared  Ger- 
many had  at  least  16  undoubtedly  first- 
class  dreadnaughts  and  battleships  afloat 
and  enough  others  building,  or  appropri- 
ated for,  to  make  a  total  of  28,  of  which 
some  very  certainly  were  due  soon  to  be 
launched.  All  these  28  were  not,  how- 
ever, "all-big-gun"  ships. 

Q. — How  did  the  various  Powers 
compare  in  big-gun  ships  in 
1914? 

A. — In  big-gun  ships  Great  Britain,  ac- 
cording to  the  U.  S.  Navy  Department, 
Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  had  in  the 
end  of  the  year  1913,  18  all-big-gun  dread- 
naughts  alone,  with  14  building.  Ger- 
many had  13  with  6  building.  France  had 
2  with  9  building.  Japan  had  2  with  4 
building.  Italy  had  2  with  7  building. 
Austria  had  2  with  2  building. 

Q. — What  are  all-big-gun  ships? 

A. — They  are  the  very  last  thing  in 
naval  construction,  being  ships  whose  tur- 
rets are  loaded  to  the  limit  of  possibility 
with  the  largest  rifled  steel  cannon  ever 


Our  Navy 


79 


made.  The  battleships  of  the  past  had 
various  "batteries"  of  guns  with  many 
calibers.  The  "all-big-gun"  ship  is  de- 
signed to  do  its  smashing  with  a  huge, 
swift  discharge  of  projectiles  of  one  size 
— the  heaviest  projectile  ever  used  either 
on  land  or  sea. 

Q. — How  do  the  belligerents  com- 
pare in  battle-cruisers? 

A. — We  know  only  how  they  did  com- 
pare before  the  war.  In  the  beginning  of 
1914  they  stood  as  follows :  Great  Britain 
9  and  I  building,  Germany  4  and  3  build- 
ing, Russia  none  and  4  building,  Japan 
I  and  3  building,  and  Italy  and  Austria 
none  and  none  building. 

Q. — How   many    ships    did   Japan 
have  when  war  began? 

A. — Our  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence 
stated,  December,  1913,  that  Japan  then 
had  actually  afloat  2  first-class  all-big-gun 
dreadnaughts,  13  battleships  of  about 
10,000  tons  each,  i  battle  cruiser,  13  ar- 
mored cruisers,  14  other  cruisers,  54  de- 
stroyers, 28  torpedo  boats  and  13  sub- 


Q. — Has  the  American  Navy  any 
dreadnaughts? 

A. — We  have  many  ships  of  the  dread- 
naught  and,  indeed,  super-dreadnaught 
class ;  but  the  term  is  not  used  in  our 
navy.  These  monster  ships  are  called 
"battleships  of  the  first  line"  by  the  Navy 
Department,  and  the  favorite  American 
naval  name  for  them  is  All-Big-Gun 
Ships. 

Q. — What  system  is  used  in  nam- 
ing American  warships? 

A. — A  very  simple  one,  easy  to  remem- 
ber, and  having  the  further  virtue  that 
whoever  learns  the  principle  can  ever 
afterward  identify  the  type  (kind)  of 
each  American  war-vessel  as  soon  as  the 
name  is  given. 

All  armored  ships  (which  means  battle- 
ships and  armored  cruisers)  are  named 
after  States.  Cruisers  are  named  after 
cities,  with  the  general  rule  obtaining  that 
a  cruiser  of  the  first  class  shall  be  named 
for  a  city  of  the  first  class,  etc.  Gun- 
boats are  named  after  smaller  cities. 

Destroyers  bear  the  names^  of  ^  naval 
officers  who  have  won  some  historic  dis- 
tinction. Submarines  are  known  merely 
by  a  letter  with  a  number  after  it  de- 
noting their  place  in  the  class  shown  by 
the  letter  (as  A-2). 


Fuel  ships  and  colliers  bear  the  names 
of  Greek  and  Roman  deities  and  heroes, 
such  as  Jupiter,  Cyclops,  Vulcan,  etc. 
Supply  ships  bear  such  names  as  Supply, 
Glacier,  etc. 

There  are  some  exceptions  in  each  type 
to  the  rule  given  here.  Thus,  one  Ameri- 
can ship  in  the  battleship  line  bears  and 
probably  always  will  bear  the  name  Kear- 
sarge,  to  commemorate  the  famous  steam 
frigate  that  sank  the  equally  famous  Con- 
federate Alabama,  off  Cherbourg,  France, 
at  the  end  of  the  Civil  War. 

Q. — How  many  States  are  repre- 
sented by  armored  ships  bear- 
ing their  names? 

A. — Every  State  in  the  Union  is  repre- 
sented by  a  battleship  of  the  first  line,  a 
battleship  of  the  second  line,  or  an  ar- 
mored cruiser.  That  makes  48  capital 
ships  named  after  States.  But  in  1916 
our  line  of  armored  big  ships  afloat,  de- 
signed, under  construction,  or  ready  to 
launch  had  grown  so  that  we  had  52  of 
them  planned,  4  more  than  we  had  States. 
This  overflow  bears  the  names  of  four 
cities. 

Q. — What  system  does  the  British 
Navy  use  for  naming  ships? 

A. — A  leading  principle  in  British 
naval  nomenclature  is  to  immortalize  the 
names  of  famous  British  war-vessels. 
Thus  there  always  is  some  capital  ship 
in  the  British  Navy  bearing  the  name 
Revenge,  after  Sir  Richard  Grenville's 
famous  ship  that  fought  the  Spanish  fleet, 
as  immortalized  in  Tennyson's  poem. 
Such  names  as  Agamemnon,  Vanguard, 
War  spite,  etc.,  are  examples  of  this  sys- 
tem. 

There  also  are  names  of  enemy  ships 
captured  in  illustrious  actions.  This  ex- 
plains why  some  British  vessels  today 
bear  French  names.  There  is,  however, 
no  deliberate  system  that  controls  the 
naming  of  British  ships  throughout. 
Some  bear  the  names  of  British  Kings 
and  Queens,  others  have  merely  charac- 
teristic names,  such  as  Formidable,  Ter- 
rible, Lion,  etc. 

Q. — Do  the  Germans  name  ships 
for  their  naval  heroes? 

A.— The  Germans  have  had  very  little 
naval  history.  Therefore  only  a  few  of 
their  warships  bear  names  connected  with 
sea-actions  or  sea-history. 

Their  ships  are  named  partly  after  Ger- 
man States  or  cities  (Pommern,  Leipzic, 
etc.),  partly  for  sovereigns,  and  partly  for 


8o 


Questions  and  Answers 


famous  generals  (Lutzow,  Scharnhorst, 
Bluecher,  etc.).  Other  ships  are  named 
for  animals  and  sea-birds,  like  some  Brit- 
ish ships. 

Q. — When  was  the  first  American 
gun  fired  in  the  war? 

A. — The  first  American  gun  of  the  war 
was  fired  April  19,  1917,  from  the  steam- 
ship Mongolia  at  the  periscope  of  a  Ger- 
man submarine.  The  Mongolia  was  com- 
manded by  Captain  Rice,  who  thought  at 
the  time  that  the  hostile  craft  had  been 
sunk.  It  was  later  reported  that  the 
periscope  had  been  smashed  and  the  com- 
mander killed  but  that  the  submarine  had 
not  been  sunk. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  American 
force  in  actual  war  service? 

A. — A  flotilla  of  American  U-boat  de- 
stroyers under  Admiral  William  S.  Sims 
arrived  at  Queenstown  May  4,  1917,  and 
went  into  immediate  service. 


Q. — Who  is  the  ranking  officer  of 
the  American  Navy? 

A. — Admiral  W.  S.  Benson,  Chief  of 
Naval  Operations.  Next  in  rank  is  Ad- 
miral Mayo,  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
United  States  Atlantic  Fleet 


Q. — What  is  the  difference  between 
dreadnaughts  and  old-time  bat- 
tleships? 

A. — The  old-time  battleship,  which  was 
considered  the  most  tremendous  thing 
afloat  only  ten  years  before  the  war, 
would  hardly  rank  as  a  "cruiser"  now 
against  a  modern  American  battleship  of 
the  first  line  (or  dreadnaught). 

Where  the  old-time  American  battle- 
ship carried  only  four  great  guns,  the 
modern  dreadnaught  type  carries  from 
eight  to  twelve.  Where  the  old-time  bat- 
tleship's great  guns  were  twelve-inch  di- 
ameter in  the  bore,  the  modern  dread- 
naught  carries  guns  that  are  14  and  16 
inches. 

Dreadnaughts  also  are  immensely  su- 
perior in  speed.  The  dreadnaught  type 
has  not  less  than  21  knots  speed — that 
is,  24  land-miles  an  hour.  The  old-time 
battleship  did  not  exceed  18  knots  at  its 
best.  In  addition,  the  armor  of  a  dread- 
naught  is  thousands  of  tons  heavier  than 
that  of  the  old  battleship  type. 


Q. — Do  our  dreadnaughts  carry  as 
big  guns  as  British  ships? 

A. — The  very  latest  dreadnaught  type 
of  our  ships — the  all-big-gun  ship,  as 
American  naval  experts  prefer  to  call  it 
— will  carry  the  largest  naval  guns  afloat, 
for  they  will  have  i6-inch  guns  mounted 
three  in  a  turret.  The  navy  is  building 
a  gun  now  of  the  same  diameter  but  of 
still  greater  length  and  powder-chamber 
capacity.  Armed  with  a  main  battery 
consisting  entirely  of  these  guns — from 
eight  to  twelve  to  a  single  ship — our 
American  big-gun  ships  will  actually  be 
armed  more  tremendously  than  our  big 
coast  fortifications  were  ten  years  ago. 

Q. — Is  the  battle-cruiser  a  battle- 
ship or  is  it  a  new  kind  of  ves- 
sel? 

A. — It  is  a  very  new  type  of  vessel, 
produced  by  the  efforts  of  naval  con- 
structors to  design  a  kind  of  ship  that 
should  be  mighty  enough  to  fight  every 
vessel  except  a  dreadnaught,  and  at  the 
same  time  be  so  swift  that  it  could  escape 
from  dreadnaughts.  The  result  has  been 
something  that  most  naval  constructors 
hardly  expected — a  ship  that  is  a  distinct 
hybrid  type.  It  is  neither  dreadnaught 
nor  cruiser,  yet  it  has  something  of  both. 

Q. — Is  it  heavily  armed? 

A. — It  carries  guns  so  huge  that  a  few 
years  ago  no  constructor  would  have 
dared  to  suggest  mounting  them  even  on 
battleships.  Its  speed  is  so  great  that  it 
actually  is  greater  than  that  of  the  swift 
little  torpedo  destroyers  of  a  few  years 
ago,  and  yet,  despite  this  speed,  it  is 
simply  monstrous  with  armor-belting — so 
much  so  that  it  has  turned  out  that  a 
battle-cruiser,  while  inferior  to  a  dread- 
naught,  has  some  possible  chance  of  fight- 
ing off  a  dreadnaught  in  any  running 
fight  that  gives  the  battle-cruiser  sea- 
room  enough  to  choose  and  maintain  its 
distance. 

This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  a 
battle-cruiser  commander  will  deliberately 
undertake  to  fight  a  first-class  dread- 
naught.  The  battle-cruiser's  business  is  to 
avoid  dreadnaughts  and  smash  everything 
else. 

Q. — Are  there  any  battle-cruisers 
in  the  American  Navy? 

A. — Yes.  During  1914  and  1915  Ameri- 
can naval  experts  were  doubtful  about  the 
value  of  the  type,  and  leaned  to  the  belief 
that  dreadnaughts  probably  would  be  the 


Our  Navy 


Si 


best  part  of_  a  big  navy.  This  belief  in 
the  superiority  of  dreadnaughts  remains 
justified,  but  the  naval  operations  in  the 
North  Sea  have  demonstrated  the  im- 
mense value  of  heavy  ships  with  vast 
speeds  in  addition. 

We  are  now  building  battle-cruisers 
with  speeds  of  35  knots — 40.3  statute  or 
land  miles  an  hour!  These  battle-cruis- 
ers are  at  least  14  knots  (16  miles)  faster 
than  our  best  battleships — which  means 
that  if  a  battle-cruiser  and  a  dreadnaught 
were  to  begin  a  fight  at  maximum  gun- 
range  apart,  the  battle-cruiser  could  run 
completely  out  of  gun-range  in  less  than 
two  minutes. 

Q. — What  were  the  expert  criti- 
cisms of  the  battle-cruiser 
type? 

A. — The  chief  criticism  was  that  they 
were  heavier  than  was  necessary  against 
inferior  ships  (armored  cruisers,  etc.), 
and  yet  so  inferior  to  dreadnaughts  that 
they  represented  wasted  power.  Technic- 
ally, this  criticism  was  sound,  but  it 
"stacked  up"  against  the  actual  fact  that 
the  two  big  belligerents  (Germany  and 
Great  Britain)  did  use  battle-cruisers,  and 
that,  therefore,  any  navy  that  wanted  to 
maintain  its  rank  had  also  to  produce 
battle-cruisers.  Furthermore,  the  big  fea- 
ture of  the  battle-cruiser — speed — has 
proved  in  fleet  actions  to  be  something  of. 
enormous  importance,  almost  ranking 
with  gun-fire  itself  as  an  actual  part  of 
combat. 

Q. — How  do  our  battle-cruisers 
compare  with  the  foreign 
ones? 

A. — The  latest  type  of  American  battle- 
cruiser,  on  which  construction  is  being- 
hurried  now,  is  a  ship  of  35,000  tons  with 
35  knots  speed.  This  type,  of  which  six 
are  to  be  set  afloat,  is  5,000  tons  heavier 
and  13  knots  faster  than  the  Tiger  type 
of  Great  Britain,  which  was  recognized 
as  the  biggest  battle-cruiser  afloat  in  1914 
and  1915. 

It  is,  also,  larger  and  faster  than  the 
Queen  Elisabeth  type  of  super-dread- 
naught,  and  carries  almost  as  heavy  a 
turret-battery. 

Q. — Why  do  we  never  hear  of  tor- 
pedo boats? 

A.— The  torpedo  boat  has  vanished 
from  modern  navies.  It  was  a  terror  to 
the  imagination  of  naval  commanders  up 
to  about  the  time  of  the  Spanish-Ameri- 


can War,  but  it  never  proved  itself.  At 
the  naval  battle  of  Santiago  de  Cuba  the 
last  attempt  in  history  by  torpedo  boats 
was  made  when  the  Spanish  torpedo 
boats  Pluton  and  Terror  emerged  from 
the  harbor  with  the  other  Spanish  ships 
and  were  sunk  almost  instantly  by  the 
United  States  ship  Gloucester — a  con- 
verted steam-yacht! 

Q. — If  the  torpedo  boat  has  van- 
ished, why  have  we  so  many 
torpedo-boat  destroyers? 

A.— They  are  torpedo-boat  destroyers 
only  in  name,  and  hardly  even  in  name. 
It  is  true  that  they  were  built  originally 
to  destroy  torpedo  boats ;  but  they  have 
remained  to  fill  a  distinct  naval  place  of 
their  own.  They  are  the  "legs"  of  the 
fighting  navy,  and  they  form  an  inces- 
santly flying  guard  for  its  armored  ship 
squadrons. 

Immensely  fast,  well  armed  with  quick- 
fire  rifled  cannon  as  well  as  with  many 
torpedo-tubes  (both  deck  and  under- 
water), they  are  formidable  little  war- 
vessels.  Battles  between  destroyer  flo- 
tillas have  occurred  many  times  in  the 
great  war,  because  these  swift  ships  have 
practically  taken  over  the  monopoly  of 
marine  patrol,  scouting  and  general  sea- 
guard  duty.  They  are  known  simply  as 
"destroyers"  now,  and  the  original  duty 
for  which  they  were  designed  is  prac- 
tically forgotten. 

Q. — Does  "tonnage"  in  a  naval 
vessel  refer  to  internal  capac- 
ity? 

A. — No.  The  word  "tonnage"  means 
two  entirely  different  things  in  naval 
usage  and  in  commercial  usage.  The  ton- 
nage of  a  merchant  ship  really  has  noth- 
ing at  all  to  do  with  weight.  It  is  a 
measure  of  internal  capacity  pure  and 
simple. 

The  word  "tonnage,"  describing  the  size 
of  a  warship,  on  the  other  hand,  does 
actually  and  very  specifically  refer  to 
weight.  When  we  say,  for  example,  that 
a  dreadnaught  is  of  30,000  tons,  we  mean 
that  the  ship  when  afloat  displaces  that 
weight  of  water. 

Q. — Is  any  system  used  in  naming 
the  small  ships  added  since  the 
war? 

A. — It  has  been  impossible  to  do  so.  A 
number  of  the  newly  built  motor-driven 
scout  vessels  are  named  "Submarine 
Chaser  No.  So-and-so,"  but  most  of  the 
vessels  have  had  to  be  named  hit  or  miss. 


82 


Questions  and  Answers 


The  converted  yachts  largely  retain  their 
original  names.  The  transports  bear 
miscellaneous  names,  ranging  from 
Prairie  to  Hancock  (the  latter  being 
named  for  the  noted  General  Hancock). 
The  naval  tugs  mostly  have  Indian 
names,  such  as  Choctaw,  Jroquois,  Nava- 
jo,  etc.,  but  there  are  many  exceptions  to 
this  rule,  since  the  war-expansion. 

Q. — What  kind  of  warships  have 
we  the  most  of? 

A. — Destroyers  form  the  biggest  nu- 
merical part  of  the  American  Navy.  In 
1917,  when  the  war  began,  we  had  on  the 
list  more  than  60  destroyers  of  the  type 
known  as  "sea-going" — that  is,  true  war- 
ships which  can  cruise  over  seas  like  any 
other  warship.  Our  newest  and  biggest 
ones  approach  the  tonnage  of  the  early 
American  cruisers  of  the  White  Squad- 
ron, and  in  speed,  rapidity  of  gun-fire  and 
offensive  power  generally  they  would  ac- 
tually outmatch  any  of  those  early  cruis- 
ers in  a  ship-to-ship  fight. 

In  addition  we  have  more  than  a  score 
of  secondary  destroyers — vessels  not  suf- 
ficiently powerful  or  with  a  sufficient  coal 
capacity  to  carry  war  over  seas,  but  very 
good  ships  for  coast  work,  for  which  rea- 
son they  are  known  as  "coast  torpedo 
vessels." 

In  the  third  line  we  have  another  score 
and  more  of  torpedo  boats.  This  is  the 
old,  original  type  of  small  craft,  which, 
was  supplanted  for  battle  purposes  by 
the  bigger  destroyers. 

Adding  the  many  big  destroyers  that 
have  been  launched  since  the  war  began 
(whose  number  it  is  not  permissible  to 
state)  we  thus  have  a  really  powerful 
fleet  of  this  type  alone. 

Q. — What  is  the  size  of  our  great- 
est all-big-gun  ships?  Are 
they  bigger  than  the  Ger- 
mans' ? 

A. — They  are  positively  bigger  than 
any  that  the  Germans  had  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  war,  and  our  experts  believe 
that  they  are  bigger  than  any  in  the  Ger- 
man Navy  to-day.  We  believe,  with  very 
fair  foundation  for  the  belief,  that  our 
all-big-gun  ships  average  25  per  cent  more 
in  magnitude  than  the  best  German 
dreadnaughts. 

When  war  began,  we  had  under  con- 
struction five  all-big-gun  ships  (what  the 
British  and  German  navies  would  call 
super-dreadnaughts)  of  32,000  tons,  with 
twelve  14-inch  turret  guns  and  armor 
belting  14  to  18  inches  thick. 


Appropriations  were  granted  after  the 
war  declaration  for  four  ships  of  32,500 
tons,  carrying  eight  i6-inch  turret  guns ; 
and  hardly  had  naval  constructors 
achieved  this  daring  conception,  before 
naval  science  leaped  forward  and  at  one 
stroke  made  possible  the  design  of  four 
monsters  of  40,000  tons,  mounting  twelve 
i6-inch  turret  guns. 

These  are  the  mightiest  ships  ever  de- 
signed for  any  navy  in  the  history  of  the 
world. 

Q. — Why   do    colliers    accompany 
warships  ? 

A. — Though  modern  warships  can  carry 
an  enormous  amount  of  fuel  (coal  or  oil), 
they  never  can  have  too  much,  for  mod- 
ern sea  operations  entail  not  only  enor- 
mous cruising  radius,  but  they  demand 
such  extreme  speed  that  fuel  is  used  up 
in  incredible  quantities.  Each  extra  knot 
of  speed  demands  an  increased  consump- 
tion of  fuel,  rising  in  extraordinary  ratio. 
Therefore,  every  modern  fleet  is  accom- 
panied by  ships  that  are  loaded  to  every 
inch  of  capacity  with  coal  or  oil. 

Q. — How  do  fuel  ships  load  their 
fuel  into  warships  at  sea? 

A. — Fuel  ships  are  genuine  floating  ma- 
chinery depots.  The  ocean,  even  on  the 
calmest  day  that  ever  was,  is  in  heavy 
motion.  Even  when  there  are  no  storm 
waves- at  all,  there  is  a  very  big  "heave" — 
mile-long  undulations  so  great  that  the 
biggest  warship  rolls  and  pitches  and 
rises  and  falls.  To  attempt  to  lay  two 
ships  side  by  side  would  inevitably 
smash  them  both.  Therefore,  the  only 
way  to  fuel  a  warship  at  sea  is  to  main- 
tain a  safe  distance  between  the  warship 
and  the  supply  ship  and  send  the  fuel 
across  the  space  of  sea  by  machinery. 
The  fuel  ships  have  huge  towers  of  inter- 
laced iron,  and  from  these  steel  cables  are 
sent  across  to  the  warship.  Electrical 
machinery  sends  traveling  coal-receptacles 
back  and  forth. 

Q. — Are  our  sailors  really  among 
the  best  gunners  of  the  world? 

A. — Yes.  This  is  due  largely  to  the 
fact  that  we  were  ahead  of  other  nations 
(even  of  Great  Britain)  in  realizing  that 
naval  gunnery  was  not  at  all  what  it 
should  be,  or  what  it  might  be  made.  We 
learned  a  drastic  lesson  in  the  battle  of 
Santiago  de  Cuba.  Although  our  ships 
smashed  the  Spanish  ships,  an  actual 
count  and  analysis  of  hits,  as  compared 
with  the  amount  of  gun-fire,  showed  that 


Our  Navy 


the  percentage  of  hits  was  astonishingly 
meager.  This  was  especially  so  in  the 
case  of  the  big-gun  fire.  Very  few  big- 
gun  projectiles  went  home.  The  result 
was  a  great  increase  in  American  target 
practice  at  battle  ranges.  It  was  enoF- 
mously  expensive,  but  it  paid. 

Q. — Can  American  naval  gunners 
hit  something  with  every  shot 
of  a  big  gun? 

A. — By  no  means.  No  navy  has  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  anywhere  near  such  a 
record.  In  the  winter  practice  in  the 
Caribbean  Sea,  off  the  American  naval 
base  of  Guantanamo,  Cuba,  our  ships 
made  records  which  are  accepted  as  be- 
ing very  remarkable.  Firing  at  "battle 
ranges" — that  is,  at  ranges  not  less  than 
from  4,000  yards  to  7,000  yards  (2%  to  4 
statute  miles)  the  all-big-gun  battleships 
averaged  21  per  cent  of  hits  at  medium 
battle  range  and  7  per  cent  of  hits  at 
long  battle  range.  The  total  average  for 
all  the  types  t>f  ships  at  medium  battle 
range  was  II  per  cent. 

Q. — Is  that  percentage  really 
good? 

A. — It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
ships  were  going  at  top  speed  when  the 
firing  was  done.  This  means  that  the 
ranges  were  changing  every  second  and 
the  turret  crews  had  to  fire  at  the  word 
of  command. 

You  must  remember  also  that  one  single 
clean  hit  by  a  14-inch  or  i6-inch  shell  at 
medium  battle  range  is  likely  to  wreck 
a  dreadnaught,  and,  under  any  circum- 
stances, will  be  pretty  sure  to  cripple  it, 
either  putting  a  turret  out  of  commis- 
sion, dismantling  its  elaborate  system  of 
electric  transmission  or  starting  a  fire. 

Q. — What  do  American  warships 
cost? 

A. — The  cost  varies  very  widely  with 
conditions  of  labor  and  prices  of  raw 
materials.  The  Pennsylvania,  one  of  our 
very  modern  all-big-gun  dreadnaught  type 
battleships,  cost  almost  $12,000,000,  with- 
out its  guns.  The  hull  and  machinery 
cost  7*/2  millions  alone.  The  armor  cost 
4  millions. 

A  highly  modern  destroyer,  such  as  the 
Ericsson,  cost  $874,000,  without  its_  guns 
or  torpedoes,  and  a  big  fleet  submarine  of 
the  L  type  cost  a  little  more  than 
$525,000.  ' 


Q. — Are  most  of  our  ships  coal- 
burners  or  oil-burners? 

A. — All  our  modern  ships  are  oil-burn- 
ers. Indeed,  if  it  were  not  for  the  fact 
that  there  still  is  some  difficulty  in  sup- 
plying adequate  amounts  of  oil,  coal-burn- 
ing warships  might  be  said  to  have  gone 
wholly  out  of  date.  The  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  said  in  his  report  of  December  I, 
1916,  that  "it  may  be  stated  tfiat  the 
scouts,  destroyers  and  battle-cruisers 
authorized  by  the  last  naval  appropria- 
tion act  could  not  be  built  if  coal  were 
used  for  fuel." 

Q. — How  much  oil  does  a  fighting 
navy  consume? 

A.— In  active  service  (meaning  active 
fighting,  which  kept  the  big  ships  well 
under  motion  for  a  good  period)  the  oil- 
burning  vessels  of  our  navy  at  its  present 
magnitude  would  require  at  least  three 
million  barrels  in  a  year.  This,  probably, 
is  a  minimum  estimate  for  such  a  theo- 
retical condition. 

Actually,  even  in  a  year  of  great  activ- 
ity, the  big  ship  fleets  would  lie  at  bases 
for  a  good  part  of  the  time  or  cruise  at 
such  slow  speeds  that  consumption  of  oil 
would  be  kept  down. 

However,  even  at  best,  the  fuel  de- 
mands are  great.  In  1915  the  American 
Navy  burned  521,000  barrels  of  oil,  much 
more  than  a  thousand  barrels  a  day.  In 
1916  it  burned  842,000  barrels,  or  2,300 
barrels  a  day. 

Q.— What  are  the  tall  tower-like 
skeleton  things  on  our  new 
warships  ? 

A. — They  are  the  so-called  "cage  masts" 
which  have  replaced  the  old-fashioned 
"fighting  top"  mast.  The  latter  was  sim- 
ply a  big  hollow  steel  mast  with  a  cir- 
cular staircase  inside  leading  to  the  fight- 
ing top — a  lightly  armored  platform  for 
observers  and  men  handling  light  rapid- 
fire  jejuns. 

The  "cage  mast"  is  a  genuine  tower, 
made  of  lattice  steel,  and  it  is  a  charac- 
teristic of  our  modern  ships. 

The  old-fashioned  fighting  top  mast 
was  liable  to  come  down  in  ruin  if  one 
big  shell  struck  it.  The  principle  of  the 
cage  mast  is  that  its  web-like  construction 
will  enable  it  to  stand  even  though  a 
large  number  of  shells  plow  holes  through 
it. 

Q. — Is  a  knot  the  same  as  a  mile? 

A. — No.  A  knot  is  a  nautical  mile,  and 
is  6,080  feet.  The  mile,  as  known  to 


84 


Questions  and  Answers 


landsmen,  is  the  statute  mile,  5,280  feet. 
A  ship  steaming  30  knots  an  hour  would 
cover  34^  of  our  land-miles  in  that  hour. 
For  rough  calculation  it  is  customary  to 
figure  a  knot  as  equalling  i  1-7  land-miles. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  a  "naval 
screen"? 

A. — It  means  the  sending  out  of  scout 
cruisers  and  other  very  fast  vessels  with 
enough  cruising  radius  and  power  to 
sweep  far  ahead  and  abeam  of  the  main 
fleet  (sometimes  half  a  thousand  miles 
ahead)  to  prevent  the  scouts  and  cruisers 
of  the  enemy  fleet  from  finding  out  any- 
thing. If  the  screening  vessels  are  suf- 
ficiently powerful,  they  may  sink  or  drive 
back  the  enemy  scouts.  If  they  are 
weaker  than  the  enemy,  they  try  either 
to  draw  them  off  on  a  wild-goose  chase, 
or  else  they  race  back  toward  the  protec- 
tion of  their  own  fleet,  sending  wireless 
warnings  as  they  go. 

Q. — What  are  territorial  waters? 

A. — Territorial  waters  are  the  harbors 
and  indentations  of  a  nation's  coasts,  and, 
in  addition,  the  open  sea  to  a  limit  of 
three  marine  miles  (6,000  yards)  from 
the  whole  line  of  coast.  This  distance  of 
three  miles  was  fixed  long  ago,  merely 
because  at  that  time  the  utmost  range  of 
a  coast  cannon  was  about  that  distance. 
It  has  often  been  proposed  to  extend 
this  territorial  zone  to  ten  or  more  miles, 
but  the  three-mile  limit  remains  in  force. 
Within  that  distance  of  a  neutral  coast, 
enemies  may  not  fight  or  take  prizes,  etc. 

Q. — Why  are  the  German  naval 
guns  not  so  big  as  those  of  the 
American  and  British  navies? 

A. — The  German  naval  principle  was  to 
depend  on  the  very  great  power  (ballistic 
property)  which  they  deemed  was  assured 
by  the  Krupp  method.  They  believed  that 
this  justified  their  reliance  on  12-inch  guns 
against  t'.ie  14-inch  guns  which  were  be- 
ing mounted  in  increasing  numbers  in 
other  navies.  But  after  the  arrival  of 
15-inch  guns  in  the  British  Queen  Elisa- 
beth class,  the  Germans  also  began  to  de- 
sign 15-inch-gun  ships.  It  appears  rea- 
sonable to  assume  that  our  i6-inch  turret 
batteries  would  heavily  outclass  the  Ger- 
man ships  of  any  date  earlier  than  1916. 

Q. — Does  the  term  "all-big-gun 
ship"  mean  that  these  monsters 
carry  no  other  guns? 

A. — No.  They  carry  plenty  of  other 
guns — rapid-fire  guns,  machine  guns, 


fighting-mast  guns,  anti-aircraft  guns, 
automatics,  and  in  addition  a  thousand 
or  more  rifles.  Nor  is  that  all.  Peer- 
ing from  armored  ports  on  each  side  are 
the  "little  brothers"  of  the  great  turret 
guns — a  row  along  each  side  of  the  ship, 
under  deck,  of  5-  and  6-inch  guns.  There 
are  as  many  as  twenty  and  more  of  these 
guns  in  the  "secondary  battery" — a  bat- 
tery which  would  have  been  considered 
as  being  super-armament  for  a  cruiser  of 
President  Cleveland's  time  when  we  be- 
gan our  navy  by  building  the  famous 
"White  Squadron."  The  heaviest  ship  of 
that  squadron  carried  no  guns  bigger 
than  8-inch,  and  only  a  few  as  big  as 
that. 

Q. — What  is  the  battleship's  most 
dangerous  opponent? 

A. — Apart  from  its  natural  opponent, 
which  is  another  battleship,  the  torpedo 
remains  the  one  great  menace  to  the  bat- 
tleship. In  every  engagement,  during  the 
great  war,  whenever  battleships  (dread- 
naughts)  or  battle-cruisers  took  part, 
they  were  harassed  and  endangered  im- 
mensely by  destroyer  squadrons  that  ma- 
neuvered under  thick  smoke-clouds  and 
launched  torpedoes  at  long  ranges. 

Several  big  armored  ships  that  might 
have  survived  the  gunfire  of  their  equals 
were  sunk  by  the  little  craft.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  undeniable  that  the 
torpedo  has  failed  to  prove  itself  such 
"sure  death"  as  its  enthusiastic  support- 
ers had  foretold. 

Q. — Are  some  American  naval 
ships  not  named  for  flowers? 

A. — No.  The  ships  you  think  of  are 
Treasury  Department  vessels  belonging  to 
the  lighthouse  service.  They  are  known 
as  lighthouse  tenders  and  are  partly  un- 
der naval  rules — almost  wholly  so  during 
war.  These  tenders  bear  such  names  as 
Myrtle,  Golden  Rod,  Maple,  etc. 

Q. — Did  an  American  vessel  fire  on 
an  Italian  warship  after  the 
United  States  entered  the  war? 

A. — Late  in  the  summer  of  1917  the 
United  States  gunboat  Nashville  was  in 
the  Mediterranean  on  cruising  duty  when 
a  submarine  emerged  suddenly.  The 
Nashville  broke  out  a  signal  which  should 
have  received  an  instant  reply  from  a 
friendly  vessel.  No  reply  was  made  and 
the  Nashville  opened  fire,  killing  one  of 
the  submarine's  crew.  Then  there  were 
signals  which  showed  that  the  submarine 
was  Italian. 


Our  Navy 


Q. — Just  what  kind  of  a  warship  is 
a  cruiser? 

A. — In  the  old  days  of  sail,  and  even  in 
the  early  days  of  steam,  almost  any  war- 
ship that  was  on  active  cruising  duty  was 
referred  to  as  a  cruiser.  When  steam 
and  armor-plating  came  in,  the  term  be- 
came strictly  limited  to  certain  types  of 
ships,  fairly  large,  swifter  than  other 
types,  more  or  less  protected,  but  not  as 
heavy  as  the  real  armor-clads. 

Now,  with  the  vast  and  phenomenally 
swift  increase  of  our  navy,  the  term  has 
begun  once  more  to  be  very  wide.  We 
have  powerful  ships  known  as  armored 
cruisers,  ships  almost  as  big,  but  much, 
less  powerful,  known  as  scout  cruisers, 
and  very  light  ships  (scarcely  protected  at 
all  except  for  a  thin  plating  of  extra 
steel  around  vital  parts)  known  as  light 
cruisers.  In  addition  we  have  little  mo- 
tor-driven patrol  vessels  that  are  called 
scout  cruisers,  though  in  former  days 
they  would  have  been,  known  merely  as 
patrol-boats. 

Then  there  is  the  new  type  of  ship 
known  as  battle-cruiser,  which,  actually, 
is  bigger  than  the  battleships  of  a  few 
years  ago,  mightily  armor-belted  and 
laden  with  turret-guns. 

Thus  we  may  say  that  the  term 
"cruiser,"  used  by  itself,  has  quite  lost 
any  specific  meaning  now. 


Q. — At  what  range  can  a  gun  fired 
from  a  battleship  hit  an  object? 

A. — In  the  naval  battle  between  von 
Spee  and  Craddock,  off  the  coast  of  Chile, 
the  two  squadrons  opened  fire  on  each 
other  with  deadly  effect  at  12,000  yards. 
In  the  running  fight  off  the  Falkland 
Islands,  most  of  the  execution  was  done 
at  a  range  of  15,000  yards  (8H  statute 
miles). 

Q. — Does  the  armor  protect  mod- 
ern battleships  absolutely? 

A. — No.  It  protects  them  only  rela- 
tively. That  is,  at  ( extreme  fighting 
ranges  these  modern  ships  can  receive  the 
fire  from  the  heaviest  naval  guns  (12-, 
14-  and  15-inch  guns)  and  survive.  But 
when  the  range  falls  to  from  6,000  to 
4,000  yards  the  armor-piercing  shell  from 
big  naval  guns  can  perforate  the  armor 
on  super-dreadnaughts. 

In  warship  construction,  armor  and  gun 
have  run  a  race  for  many  years,  with  the 
gun  always  keeping  a  little  ahead. 


Q. — How  thick  is  armor  on  Amer- 
ican ships? 

A. — On  the  heaviest  all-big-gun  ships 
the  armor  belting  is  composed  of  steel 
plates  16  and  18  inches  thick.  A  rough 
and  ready  naval  saying  is  that  armor  must 
always  be  at  least  the  same  as  the  diam- 
eter of  the  gun  that  may  attack  it.  Thus, 
14-inch  armor  for  ships  that  may  have  to 
fight  14-inch  guns,  etc. 

Q. — What  service  is  required  of  a 
naval  hospital  apprentice,  first 
class  ? 

A. — The  Hospital  Apprentice  First 
Class  renders  services  required  from  a 
hospital  orderly,  with  a  training  of  six 
months  in  one  of  the  four  Hospital  Corps 
Schools.  He  is  enjoined  to  "study  the 
methods  of  the  Nurse  Corps  and  learn  all 
he  can  about  the  care  of  the  sick."  At 
sea  during  the  past  few  months  the  hos- 
pital corpsmen  have  had  very  hard  work. 

At  shore  stations  beyond  the  seas  the 
hospital  corpsmen  have  been  kept  a  little 
over  the  usual  i8-month  period.  They 
may  serve  today  on  Asiatic  stations,  in 
Europe,  and  with  marine  forces  on  expe- 
ditionary duty.  Physical  and  litter  drill 
and  first-aid  instruction  has  been  given  to 
all  hospital  corpsmen. 

Q. — Have  we  established  marine 
zones  for  coast  defense? 

A. — Yes.  An  executive  order  of  April 
J3>  1917,  established  defensive  areas  at  the 
entrance  to  chief  harbors  of  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  coasts,  Gulf  of  Mexico  and 
insular  Colonies.  No  vessel  may  enter 
the  limits  of  these  areas  except  by  per- 
mission of  the  harbor  patrol  and  by  fol- 
lowing certain  definite  routes.  No  ves- 
sels not  belonging  to  the  United  States 
Navy  may  enter  at  night.  Vessels  dis- 
obeying are  subject  to  detention  for  in- 
vestigation. 

Q. — Why  does  a  sailor  wear  a 
black  scarf? 

A. — This  scarf  is  worn  in  memory  of 
the  sailors  who  have  died  in  previous 
wars.  There  are  four  stripes  woven  in  the 
edge  of  this_  scarf,  representing  the  four 
great  wars  in  which  our  Navy  has  par- 
ticipated. 

Q. — Why  are  a  sailor's  trousers 
made  wide  at  the  bottom? 

A. — There  are  two  reasons.  One  is 
that  in  landing  through  surf  from  ships' 


86 


Questions  and  Answers 


boats,  sailors  must  b«  ready  instantly  to 
leap  into  the  sea  when  the  boat  gets  into 
shoal  water,  to  drag  it  up  before  the 
breakers  swamp  it.  To  do  this,  it  is 
necessary  that  they  shall  be  able  to  roll 
up  their  trousers  above  their  knees  with 
ease. 

The  other  reason  is  that  one  of  the 
daily  duties  aboard  ship  is  to  "swab 
decks,"  and  that  is  always  done  bare- 
foot and  barelegged  when  the  weather 
permits.  The  very  wide,  flaring  trousers 
are,  therefore,  a  matter  of  efficiency. 

Q. — What  is  the  significance  of  the 
thirteen  buttons  on  a  sailor's 
trousers? 

A. — These  represent  the  thirteen  orig- 
inal states. 

Q. — What  is  meant  in  the  navy  by 
the  word  "brig"? 

A. — It  is  ancient  navy  slang  for  the 
ship's  prison.  Every  naval  vessel  has  a 
group  of  cells  for  offenders. 

Q. — What  other  navy  slang  is 
there? 

A. — There  is  hardly  anything  in  the 
Navy  from  the  captain  to  the  hold  that  is 
not  known  by  a  nickname.  The  captain  is 
always  called  the  "skipper"  (except  be- 
fore his  face  or  before  an  officer).  A 
sailor  is  known  as  a  "Gob."  Hash  is  al- 
ways called  "Ballast."  A  battleship  is 
known  as  a  "battle-wagon."  The  ham- 
mock is  called  a  '"dream-bag."  Leaving 
the  ship  without  leave  is  "jumping  ship." 
An  anchor  is  a  "mud-hook."  The  elec- 
trician or  wireless  man  is  called  "Sparks." 
The  ship's  carpenter  is  always  called 
"Chips." 

Q. — How  has  the  wireless  changed 
war  on  the  sea? 

A. — In  the  old  days  an  admiral  sailed 
away  with  his  fleet,  and  was  entirely 
responsible  for  its  movements.  Each  in- 
dividual ship,  in  addition,  sent  on  special 
service,  had  to  rely  entirely  upon  itself. 
One  of  the  greatest  difficulties  was  that 
of  communication  between  the  ships  and 


different  detachments  of  fleets.  Impor- 
tant actions  might  take  place,  but  it  was 
often  weeks  before  the  Admiralty  knew 
anything  about  it.  Now  the  govern- 
ments are  in  actual  touch  with  every  war- 
ship, no  matter  in  what  part  of  the  world 
it  may  be.  Every  torpedo  boat,  even,  has 
its  wireless  installation  and  can  receive 
the  admiral's  orders  direct.  The  subma- 
rines are  similarly  equipped.  This  makes 
it  possible  for  the  great  battleships  to  lie 
far  away  from  the  coasts  and  yet  be  al- 
ways available  when  wanted. 

Q. — Do  aeroplanes  have  wireless? 

A. — The  most  up-to-date  have,  but  the 
range  is  small ;  ample,  though,  for  scout- 
ing work.  Owing  to  the  noise  of  the 
motors  it  is  impossible  to  receive  mes- 
sages on  them,  because  aerial  messages 
have  to  be  read  by  sound.  Therefore  they 
can  only  send.  Dirigibles,  however,  are 
fitted  with  wireless,  which  has  a  wide 
range,  and  can  both  send  and  receive. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  "jamming" 
the  wireless? 

A. — "Jamming"  is  generally  resorted  to 
by  weaker  ships  trying  to  escape.  They 
send  a  storm  of  electric  waves  through 
the  air  with  such  rapidity  and  strength 
that  the  pursuing  ships  cannot  get  mes- 
sages of  warning  through  to  other  ves- 
sels of  their  fleet. 

The  famous  cruisers  Gocbcn  and 
Breslau,  which  were  apparently  penned  in 
the  Adriatic  by  a  big  squadron  of  British 
ships,  jammed  the  messages  of  the  vessels 
that  sighted  them,  and  did  it  so  success- 
fully that  they  succeeded  in  getting  out 
of  the  straits  of  Otranto  and  running  into 
the  shelter  of  the  Dardanelles. 

The  Karlsruhe,  when  exchanging  shots 
with  the  British  cruiser  Bristol,  during  a 
running  fight  in  West  Indian  waters  early 
in  the  war,  also  succeeded  in  jamming 
radiograms  so  that  the  British  cruisers 
Lancaster,  Essex,  Berwick  and  Suffolk, 
which  were  all  in  those  waters,  did  not 
succeed  in  getting  the  Karlsruhe's  loca- 
tion in  time  to  come  up  with  her.  The 
result  was  that  she  escaped  into  the 
South  Atlantic  and  conducted  disastrous 
raids  on  British  commerce  for  many 
months. 


WEAPONS  OF  WAR 


Q. — What  rifle  are  the  Americans 
using? 

A. — The  standard  American  military 
rifle  is  the  Springfield  army  rifle,  so 
named  because  it  is  made  in  the  govern- 
ment armory  of  Springfield,  Mass. 

There  was  a  sufficient  quantity  of 
Springfields  on  hand  to  arm  fully  the  ex- 
peditionary forces  that  went  to  France  In 
1917.  When  the  first  draft  went  into  the 
home  camps,  the  government  had  about 
600,000  Springfield  and  100,000  Krags  in 
hand.  The  Krag  was  the  army  rifle  used 
before  the  Springfield  was  adopted,  and 
still  is  a  good  rifle.  These  Krags  are  be- 
ing replaced  with  Enfields,  and  the  men 
who  paraded  in  New  York  on  Lincoln's 
birthday  carried  the  latter  weapon. 

Q. — Is  it  better  than  the  British 
Enfield  rifle? 

A. — The  British  Enfield  is  a  famous 
arm;  but  in  January,  1918,  Secretary 
Baker  of  the  War  Department  testified 
before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs  that  just  before  the  outbreak  of 
the  European  war  the  British  govern- 
ment had  decided  to  remodel  its  Enfield 
rifle  to  gain  some  improved  characteris- 
tics such  as  those  that  exist  in  the 
Springfield,  an  especial  point  being  a 
change  to  enable  it  to  take  a  rimless 
cartridge  which  is  one  of  the  notable  fea- 
tures of  our  Springfield  rifle. 

Q. — Did  the  country  have  enough 
Springfield  rifles  to  arm  all  the 
troops  ? 

A. — No.  But  there  has  been  a  quantity 
quite  sufficient  to  supply  the  expedition- 
ary forces  in  France  from  the  very  be- 
ginning. 

Q. — Is  it  not  true  that  the  United 
States  ordered  Enfield  rifles? 

A. — Yes.  There  were  many  American 
factories  that  had  facilities  for  making 
the  Enfield  model,  because  they  had  been 
filling  orders  for  the  British  government. 
To  change  this  machinery  so  that  it  could 
make  Springfields  would  have  been  in 
many  cases  impossible  and  in  all  cases  a 
matter  of  too  much  time.  It  was  decided, 
therefore,  to  order  the  Enfield  model  to 
help  out  in  the  quantity. 


Q. — Was  not  the  Enfield  of  a  dif- 
ferent caliber? 

A. — Yes ;  but  it  was  found  possible  to 
change  the  machinery  to  make  the  En- 
fields  take  the  same  ammunition  as  the 
Springfields.  The  British  rifle  was  .303 
caliber.  The  Springfield  is  .30  caliber. 
The  magazine  of  both  rifles  is  loaded  with 
a  single  motion  by  simply  shoving  in  a 
"clip"  with  the  requisite  number  of  cart- 
ridges. The  clip  for  the  Springfield  holds 


Q. — What  is  the  principle  of  the 
Enfield  rifle? 

A. — The  British  rifle  is  built  on  the 
principle  of  the  famous  Mauser  rifle — 
the  rifle  which  the  Boers  used  against  the 
British  in  South  Africa  and  the  Span- 
iards against  us  in  Cuba. 

Q. — Does  the  Springfield  rifle 
shoot  as  fast  as  one  can  pull 
the  trigger? 

A.— No.  There  are  some  patterns  of 
sporting  rifles  which  shoot  that  way,  but 
no  army  rifles  are  made  on  that  auto- 
matic principle.  The  army  rifles  are  re- 
•peaters,  but  the  soldier  must  throw  each 
new  cartridge  into  the  breech  by  pulling 
down  a  little  lever.  It  is  an  almost  in- 
stantaneous operation. 

Q. — Why  do  armies  not  use  auto- 
matic rifles? 

A. — Partly  because  the  automatic  rifle 
has  a  very  much  more  complicated 
mechanism  than  the  army  rifle.  This  is 
no  great  objection  in  a  rifle  for  sport, 
because  sportsmen  generally  are  experts. 
The  soldiers  in  an  army,  however,  as  a 
whole,  are  not  experts.  Besides  this,  the 
army  rifle  has  to  be  used  much  harder 
than  the  sporting  rifle.  Therefore,  it  is 
essential  that  the  parts  of  an  army  rifle 
shall  be  as  few  and  simple  as  possible. 
Another  objection  to  the  automatic  prin- 
ciple is  that  soldiers  are  prone  to  waste 
cartridges  extravagantly  once  they  begin 
firing. 

Q. — What  weapons  in  this  war  are 
American  inventions? 

A. — The  submarine  (discovered  by  an 
American,  Bushnell,  in  1775),  the  torpedo, 


88 


Questions  and  Answers 


the  Catling  gun,  the  Maxim  automatic 
machine-gun,  the  Wright  airplanes,  and 
the  Liberty  motor  are  some  of  the  im- 
portant contributions  of  American  in- 
ventive genius  to  the  armies  of  the  Allies 
— and  also  to  the  enemy  armies. 

Q. — Is  there  an  explosive  that  turns 
men  yellow? 

A. — Yes.  It  is  an  explosive  with  a 
name  almost  as  weird  as  are  its  effects. 
It  is  made  of  a  mixture  of  T.  N.  T.  and 
a  chemical  compound  called  hexanitro- 
diphenylamine.  It  stains  the  skin  a 
bright  yellow  color  which  cannot  be 
washed  off.  It  also  causes  highly  irritant 
skin  eruptions,  but  they  are  not  danger- 
ous. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  von  Mack- 
ensen's  "phalanx"? 

A. — A  wedge-like  tactic  of  General  von 
Mackensen's  army  of  attack  around  Cra- 
cow (Russian  Poland)  in  the  campaign, 
of  1915.  By  the  phalanx  tactics,  his  army 
was  fashioned  into  a  mobile  battering 
ram,  battering  its  way  by  narrow  front 
breaches,  opened  by  the  heavy  guns, 
through  the  Russian  line.  The  Russian 
line,  which  was  of  long,  thin  formation, 
was  pierced  and  crumbled  under  the 
wedge-like  ram.  The  tactic  was  used 
largely  on  the  Eastern  front,  where  the 
opposing  lines  were  of  great  length. 

Q. — Why  is  a  big  gun  called  "Big 
Bertha"? 

A. — It  is  a  slang  term  invented  by  the 
German  soldiers  (and  adopted  by  the  op- 
posing armies)  to  characterize  large 
Krupp  cannon,  because  the  present  owner 
of  the  Krupp  works  is  a  woman,  Bertha. 

Q. — What  sort  of  weapons  were 
utilized  before  cannon  came 
into  use? 

A. — There  were  many  engines  designed 
to  fire  arrows  or  hurl  stones  by  mechan- 
ical means.  The  machines  finally  pro- 
duced were  very  powerful,  and  for  a  long 
time  held  their  own  easily  against  gun- 
powder. They  worked  on  the  catapult 
principle.  One  favorite  weapon  was  a 
gigantic  cross-bow,  the  predecessor  of 
the  cannon  of  today,  and  another  was 
the  ballista,  which  was  the  howitzer  of 
the  Romans.  These  weapons  were  used 
for  siege  warfare,  and  seldom  appeared 
on  the  battlefield.  Small  catapults  were 
occasionally  used  in  the  field,  but  the  bal- 
lista was  only  used  when  attacking  towns 
and  fortresses.  It  was  large  and  heavy. 


The  largest  threw  a  stone  weighing  90 
pounds.  The  giant  cross-bow  would 
itself  weigh  between  80  and  90  pounds, 
and  would  send  a  26-inch  arrow  weigh- 
ing half-a-pound  close  on  500  yards,  but 
its  man-killing  capacity  was  limited  to 
400  yards.  Other  ancient  weapons  were 
all  modeled  on  the  type  of  the  catapult 
or  the  ballista,  except,  of  course,  batter- 
ing rams,  and  contrivances  for  protecting 
men  attacking  walls  and  the  like. 

Q. — How  were  the  catapults  oper- 
ated? 

A. — The  giant  cross-bow  was  bent  by 
drawing  back  the  "bow-string"  of  rope 
or  sinews  with  powerful  levers.  The  bal- 
lista was  a  huge  beam  or  plank  set  in  a 
heavy  platform,  and  it  worked  on  the 
principle  of  a  modern  gun-trigger.  To 
"set"  it,  it  was  hauled  backward  to  firing 
position  by  men  who  operated  stout  haw- 
sers with  levers  or  winches.  When  this 
tension  was  released,  the  plank  was 
jerked  forward  with  vast  violence  by  a 
"spring"  made  of  ropes  or  sinews  that 
had  been  twisted  to  the  utmost  degree 
possible. 

Q. — What  weapons  did  soldiers 
use  during  recent  wars? 

A.— At  Waterloo  the  British  used  the 
old  Brown  Bess  flint  firelock.  In  the 
Crimea  they  had  the  same  gun,  converted 
to  use  caps.  Rifles  based  more  or  less 
on  the  Mauser  mechanism  are  now  most 
generally  used.  In  fact,  the  French  Army 
is  the  only  one  which  has  stuck  to  the  far 
less  convenient  tube  magazine.  This 
French  Lebel  magazine  rifle  is  an  excel- 
lent weapon,  but  the  mechanism  is  more 
liable  to  get  out  of  order  than  that  of 
the  more  simple  Mauser.  The  Mannlicher 
rifle  is  used  by  the  Austrians,  the  Italians, 
the  Greeks,  the  Bulgarians  and  the  Dutch. 
The  Mauser  is  used  by  the  Germans,  the 
Belgians,  the  Spanish,  the  Portuguese  and 
the  Turks.  The  British  use  the  Lee-En- 
iield,  the  Russians  the  Nagant,  the  Amer- 
icans the  modern  Springfield. 

Q. — When  was  a  breech-loading 
rifle  used  for  the  first  time  in 
war? 

A. — In  the  Austro-Prussian  war,  of 
1866,  the  Prussians  used  what  was  called 
a  Ziindnadcl  Gewehr  (literally  meaning 
"fire-pin  gun").  They  used  the  same  gun 
in  the  Franco-German  war  of  1870-71,  but 
the  French  had  a  better  weapon,  the 
chasse-pot.  The  German  artillery  was 


Weapons  of  War 


better  than  the  French,  but  the  latter  had 
the  mitrailleuse,  the  forerunner  of  modern 
quick-firing  guns. 

Q. — What  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "camouflage"? 

A. — The  French  word,  freely  trans- 
lated, means  "to  conceal."  The  term  was 
taken  over  from  the  French  slang  word 
signifying  the  "make-up"  of  an  actor.  It 
was  first  adopted  by  the  soldiers  in  the 
field,  who  have  been  wonderfully  apt  at 
devising  phraseology  to  fit  the  novel  as- 
pects of  the  great  war. 

Q. — How  is   camouflage  used  by 
the  navy? 

A. — Strange  designs  resembling  cubist 
pictures  are  painted  on  the  hull  and  super- 
structure of  merchantmen  and  troop- 
ships. The  colors  are  gray,  light  blue 
and  drab,  often  dotted  with  pink  to  blend 
with  the  atmosphere.  Imitation  billows 
are  painted  near  the  water  line,  which 
naturally  make  the  vessel  look  much 
smaller  than  it  really  is.  One  large 
steamship  recently  came  into  an  Atlantic 
port  with  a  picture  of  a  destroyer  painted 
on  its  side,  with  all  the  rest  of  the  boat 
painted  in  light  gray.  Since  the  destroyer 
is  the  great  enemy  of  the  submarine  it 
is  obvious  why  the  merchantman  wanted 
to  be  mistaken  for  a  destroyer. 

Q. — How  can  such  bright  colors  as 
pink  conceal  a  ship  ? 

A. — There  are  two  principles  of  camou- 
flage. One  is  the  principle  of  conceal- 
ment, or  "low  visibility,"  as  it  is  of- 
ficially termed.  Under  it,  ships  are 
painted  in  drab  tints  to  make  them  blend 
against  the  more  or  less  gray  background 
of  sea  and  sky. 

The  other  principle,  known  as  that  of 
the  "dazzle,"  entirely  abandons  the  the- 
ory of  concealment  and  recognizes  ^the 
fact  that  every  ship,  no  matter  how  paint- 
ed, must  inevitably  s_tand  out  boldly  and 
black  when  seen  against  the  sun.  There- 
fore, this  second  principle  of  camouflag- 
ing accepts  visibility,  and  aims  to  paint 
ships  in  such  broken  designs  and  colors 
that  a  submarine  observer  shall  be  un- 
able to  make  any  accurate  estimate  of  the 
distance  of  the  vessel  and  shall  thus  be 
much  hampered  in  laying  his  course  for 
it  or  firing  at  it. 

Q. — What  are  the  methods  of  land 

"camouflage"  ? 

A. — It  is  done  by  painting,  by  screens, 
by  boughs  of  trees,  by  wisps  of  raffia  tied 
into  nets — like  backstop  nets  on  a  tennis 


court.  Stacks  of  munitions,  garages,  bat- 
tery emplacements  are  covered  by  canvas, 
painted  like  the  ground,  so  they  cannot 
be  discovered  by  spying  aviators.  Canals, 
roadways,  everything  is  camouflaged. 
Guns  are  hidden  beneath  a  mattress  of 
interwoven  leaves  supported  by  poles. 
Animated  stacks  of  straw  contain  observ- 
ers who  inch  forward  wherever  possible, 
•with  telephone  wires  trailing  behind  them. 
Immense  dummy  cannon,  mounted  in  con- 
spicuous places,  with  stuffed  men,  draw 
the  fire  and  thus  waste  the  ammunition 
of  the  enemy.  Life-size  scenery  showing 
a  straight  railroad  bed  conceals  an  im- 
portant turn  leading  to  a  supply  train. 
Whole  trains,  backed  on  sidings  loaded 
with  supplies,  have  been  "painted  out"  of 
the  landscape;  buildings,  bridges  and  all 
the  necessary  impedimenta,  which  go  to 
supply  the  needs  of  vast  armies,  have 
been  lost  to  the  enemy  airmen  by  the 
scientific  use  of  broken  color. 

Q. — How  did  "camouflage"  origi- 
nate? 

A. — Because  the  aeroplane  in  war 
makes  impossible  the  massing  of  men, 
guns  or  supplies  behind  the  lines  in  the 
open,  in  scattered  sectors  along  fighting 
lines  the  men  who  were  in  artillery  or 
supply  soon  began  attempts  at  conceal- 
ment of  the  great  guns  and  supply  wag- 
ons. This  was  done  crudely  at  first,  with 
tree  branches,  canvas  screens,  etc.  So 
successful  were  these  efforts  that  "camou- 
flage" quickly  became  a  definite  and  im- 
portant principle  of  defense  and  artists  of 
all  sorts  were  withdrawn  from  the 
trenches  and  formed  into  a  "Camouflage 
Corps." 

Q. — Does  "camouflage"  service  re- 
quire special  qualifications? 

A. — Yes.  "Camoufleurs"  are,  almost 
without  exception,  artists,  sign  painters, 
scene  painters,  sculptors,  mechanics  or 
carpenters'.  The  work  demands  a  high 
degree  of  imagination,  initiative  and  indi- 
vidual cleverness  in  planning.  The 
"camoufleur"  must  learn  to  see  with  the 
"bird's  eye,"  and,  to  obtain  the  right  per- 
spective, must  fly  over  the  fighting  lines 
with  the  aviator,  taking  note  of  the  needs 
of  the  sector  in  which  he  is  engaged,  and 
his  work  is  always  on  the  firing  line,  so 
he  needs  resourcefulness  and  courage  as 
well. 

Q. — Are     there     any     American 
"camoufleurs"  ? 

A. — Yes.  At  General  Leonard  Wood's 
suggestion,  American  artists  formed  a 


Questions  and  Answers 


corps,  of  which  H.  Ledyard  Towle  is  the 
head.  General  Wood  is  quoted  as  stating 
that  each  training  camp  must  organize 
from  its  own  members  a  "camouflage" 
corps. 

Q.__What  is  tolite? 

A. — That  is  one  of  the  many  names 
for  trinitrotoluol.  T.N.T.,  Trotyl,  Tri- 
tolo,  Trilite  and  Tritol  are  some  other 
names  of  the  same  substance.  It  is  very 
safe,  for  it  requires  a  heavy  detonation 
to  make  it  explode.  It  can  be  melted  and 
poured  into  shells,  without  any  danger. 
Water  does  not  harm  it  at  all.  Yet  when 
it  does  explode,  its  violence  is  terrific. 

Q. — Why  could  not  gun-cotton  be 
used  in  the  shells? 

A. — It  explodes  far  too  easily.  A  shell 
charged  with  it  would  generally  explode 
in  the  gun  owing  to  the  shock  of  the 
explosion  of  the  propulsive  ammunition. 
Picric  acid  and  T.N.T.  do  not  explode 
easily,  hence  they  are  suitable  for  shells, 
but  they  could  not  be  used  as  propulsive 
ammunition. 

Q. — What  is  black  powder  made 
of? 

A. — Nitre,   sulphur  and  charcoal. 

Q. — How  is  gun-cotton  made? 

A. — Glycerine,  nitric  and  sulphuric 
acids  and  cotton. 

Q. — To  what  extent  is  smokeless 
powder  used  in  the  war? 

A. — Only  smokeless  powder  is  used  as 
a  propulsive  nowadays.  Black  powder  not 
only  dirties  the  gun's  rifling,  but  it  is  less 
powerful.  Above  all,  it  immediately  dis- 
closes the  position  of  the  gun,  to  hide 
which  elaborate  precautions  are  taken. 

Q. — What  do  we  need  to  make  our 
explosives  ? 

A. — Gun-cotton,  nitroglycerine,  trinitro- 
toluol (T.N.T. ),  etc.,  all  compounds,  the 
manufacture  of  which  in  this  country  was 
in  its  infancy  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
European  war.  One  of  the  needed  im- 
portant chemicals  is  sulphuric  acid,  which 
is  obtained  from  sulphur  and  from  py- 
rites, or  "fool's  gold."  The  principal 
source  of  the  latter  substance  has  hith- 
erto been  the  Spanish  mines,  but  war 
has  served  to  direct  attention  to  Cuba,  the 
New  England  States,  Alabama,  etc. 

Sulphur  is  obtained  in  considerable 
quantities  from  Louisiana.  Scarcely  sec- 


ondary in  importance  is  nitric  acid.  It  is 
obtained  from  Chile  saltpeter. 

One  of  the  results  of  the  British  em- 
bargo has  been  to  cut  off  Germany's  sup- 
plies of  this  substance,  forcing  her  to  ob- 
tain nitric  acid  wholly  from  the  air  by 
expensive  processes. 

Toluol  and  ammonia,  both  ingredients 
of  high  explosives,  are  obtained  from 
gas  and  coke,  distillations  of  which  also 
lie  at  the  basis  of  the  aniline  dye  industry. 

Q. — Are  we  making  Toluol  or 
T.N.T.? 

A. — Yes.  By  the  beginning  of  1918 
American  by-product  coke  ovens  were 
producing  about  11,000,000  gallons  of 
toluol,  and  the  quantity  was  increasing. 
A  difficulty  is  that  the  construction  of 
enough  by-product  coke  retorts  requires  a 
year.  Gas  companies  can,  however,  equip 
their  plants  to  remove  the  toluol  from 
gas. 

Q. — Is  the  same  powder  used  to 
propel  shells  as  to  explode 
them? 

A. — No.  Propulsive  and  explosive 
powders  are  quite  different.  For  pro- 
pulsive purposes  black  powder  was  at  one 
time  universally  used,  but  has  now  been 
entirely  discarded.  Gelatinized  mixtures 
of  nitroglycerine  and  gun-cotton  are  now 
used  exclusively.  For  filling  the  explosive 
shells  picric  acid  and  trinitrotoluol 
(T.N.T.)  are  used.  For  a  detonator,  ful- 
minate of  mercury  is  practically  the  only 
compound  employed. 

Q. — Why  cannot  one  kind  of  pow- 
der be  used  for  everything? 

A. — For  a  variety  of  highly  technical 
reasons.  Briefly  and  very  generally,  be- 
cause the  "explosive"  powder  that  bursts 
shells  is  so  powerful  that  it  would  be 
liable  to  burst  the  guns  if  it  were  used 
as  a  propulsive  _  powder.  Furthermore, 
the  high  explosives  generate  gases  of 
chemical  composition  that  would  "erode" 
gun  chambers  and  gun  bores — that  is,  eat 
them  away.  Again,  the  high  explosives 
explode  too  quickly,  whereas  to  get  the 
utmost  range,  a  shell  must  be  hurled  out 
of  the  gun  by  a  "slow-burning"  powder. 
Smokeless  propulsive  powder  is  slow- 
burning — as  compared  with  the  high  ex- 
plosives. 

Q. — What  materials  are  required 
for  explosive  powders? 

A. — Picric  acid  is  made  from  a  product 
of  coal-tar  called  phenol  and  nitric  and 


Weapons  of  War 


sulphuric  acids.  T.N.T.  is  produced  by 
similarly  "nitrating"  toluene,  also  a  coal- 
tar  product.  The  disadvantage  of  picric 
acid  is  that  it  attacks  most  metals,  hence 
a  shell  filled  with  it  has  to  be  protected 
in  its  interior  with  some  material  on 
which  picric  acid  will  not  act.  Trinitro- 
toluol, on  the  other  hand,  suffers  from 
no  such  disadvantage.  Picric  acid,  how- 
ever, is  mixed  with  nitrate  of  ammonium, 
charcoal,  aluminium  and  trinitrotoluol. 
The  resultant  powder  is  called  ammonal. 
It  is  largely  used  by  the  Austrians,  and 
is  very  safe.  It  does  not  always  explode, 
though,  for  it  is  apt  to  become  moist. 

Q.— How  much  T.N.T.  does  a  mod- 
ern army  need? 

A. — It  has  been  estimated  that  the 
American  mobile  artillery  (heavy  and 
light  field  artillery)  might  require  as 
much  as  2,000,000  gallons  of  toluol  in  a 
year. 

Q. — How  much  cotton  does  Ger- 
many need  for  explosives? 

A. — That  is  impossible  to  say,  as  we 
have  no  knowledge  of  the  amount  of  ex- 
plosives being  made  in  Germany.  We 
must  not  forget,  however,  that  cotton  is 
used  only  for  propulsive  ammunition  and 
not  as  explosive  for  filling  shells.  To 
make  one  ton  of  gun-cotton,  half  a  ton. 
of  cotton  fiber  is  needed,  roughly  speak- 
ing. A  German  Mauser  cartridge  con- 
tains 48.4  grains  of  gun-cotton,  to  pro- 
duce which  would  require  something  over 
25  grains  of  cotton.  Assuming  that  there 
are  3,000,000  men  in  the  field,  and  that 
they  average  10  rounds  daily  for  each 
man,  we  would  have  an  expenditure  of 
51  tons  of  cotton  a  day,  or  18,600  tons  a 
year,  for  rifles  alone.  If  we  assume  that 
the  expenditure  on  machine  guns  is  about 
the  same,  we  have  a  total  of  36,000  tons 
a  year.  The  average  propulsive  charge 
for  field  guns  is,  probably,  50  pounds. 
Assuming  that  the  Germans  are  using 
5,000  guns,  and  that  each  fires  ten  shots  a 
day,  this  would  demand  1,000  tons  of 
gun-cotton,  for  which  about  550  tons  of 
cotton  would  be  required,  or,  say,  200,000 
tons  a  year.  This,  probably,  is  a  large 
overestimate.  These  figures  are  purely 
speculative  and  have  no  value  except  as 
furnishing  some  basis  for  possible  calcu- 
lation. 

Q. — Did     Germany    have     cotton 
stored  for  war? 

A. — It  is  assumed  that  Germany  used 
some  100,000  tons  of  cotton  annually  for 


making  180,000  tons  of  gun-cotton.  If  she 
had  stored  this  for  the  last  five  years 
before  the  war,  she  could  have  had  at 
least  900,000  tons  of  gun-cotton  available 
when  the  war  started.  During  1913  Ger- 
many and  Austria  imported  in  the  ordi- 
nary way  560,000  tons  of  cotton.  Un- 
doubtedly a  good  deal  of  this  could  not 
have  been  transformed  into  manufactured 
articles,  and  thus  would  be  available. 
During  1914  it  is  assumed  that  some  12,- 
ooo  tons  reached  Germany  via  Sweden, 
and  that  she  also  got  supplies  via  Hol- 
land and  Italy,  especially  the  latter.  It 
was  calculated  at  the  time  that  Germany 
would  have  sufficient  cotton  to  carry  her 
through  two  years'  war  at  any  rate,  and 
she  may  have  been  able  to  get  hold  of 
enough  to  last  for  three  years.  It  would 
seem  inevitable,  however,  that  the  time 
came^  in  1917,  when  lack  of  this  impor- 
tant ingredient  in  the  making  of  ammuni- 
tion became  a  critical  problem  to  Ger- 
many. ^A  certain  amount  of  cotton  is  pro- 
duced in  Turkey,  but  even  if  the  cotton 
fields  there  were  greatly  developed  since 
the  war  began,  nothing  like  enough  could 
be  obtained  from  that  source.  In  1912 
the  total  cotton  output  of  Turkey  was 
about  200,000  bales.  As  there  are  400 
pounds  in  a  bale  this  means  that  the  total 
production  of  Turkey  was  only  40,000 
tons. 

Q. — Is  there  no  substitute  for  cot- 
ton? 

A. — Cotton  consists  of  cellulose,  the 
chief  constituent  of  wood,  but  cotton  fiber 
appears  to  be  the  only  form  of  cellulose 
adapted  for  making  gun-cotton.  There  is 
always  the  possibility  that  under  the 
stress  of  urgent  need  the  German  chem- 
ists have  discovered  a  substitute  for  cot- 
ton, as  they  have  for  so  many  other 
things,  but  it  is  unlikely. 

Q. — What  is   the  biggest  cannon 
used  in  war? 

A. — Cannon  calibers  have  increased  pro- 
gressively during  the  war.  The  gun  of 
greatest  length  and  power  made  its  ap- 
pearance in  March,  1918,  when  the  great 
German  offensive  broke  through  the  Brit- 
ish St.  Quentin  front  and  began  the  vast 
Battle  of  Picardy. 

On  March  24,  projectiles  began  to  fall 
into  Paris,  which  was  64  miles  from  the 
very  nearest  German  line  on  that  date. 
The  greatest  range  ever  achieved  by  a 
gun  before  was  20  miles. 

The  largest  American  gun  in  1918  was 
the  l6-inch  coast-defense  rifle.  It  has  a 
range  of  somewhat  less  than  20  miles. 


Questions  and  Answers 


The  big  gun  with  which  the  Germans 
so  swiftly  destroyed  the  fortifications  of 
Liege  and  Namur  was  a  42-centimeter 
gun,  meaning  in  inches  that  its  caliber 
(the  diameter  of  its  muzzle)  was  i6l/i 
inches.  For  a  long  time  army  officers 
could  not  credit  that  a  mobile  gun  of 
such  power  could  really  exist. 

This  famous  42-centimeter  weapon  was 
on  the  howitzer  order — that  is,  it  did  not 
fire  its  projectile  with  a  fairly  flat  trajec- 
tory as  the  rifled  cannon  do,  but  dis- 
charged it  by  so-called  high-angled  fire : 
it  was  pointed  toward  the  sky  and  thus 
sent  its  shell  flying  in  a  great  arc. 


Q. — Have  the  Allies  a  bigger  gun 
than  the  German  "Big  Ber- 
tha"? 

A. — The  French  recently  built  a  mortar 
of  52  centimeters  caliber  as  against  the 
Germans'  42-centimeter  gun.  One  of 
these  guns  was  used  by  the  French  in  the 
Verdun  surprise  attack  of  August,  1917. 
Two  shells  fired  from  this  gun  were  suf- 
ficient to  wreck  Fort  Malmaison. 

This  French  52-centimeter  gun  is,  in 
our  figures,  a  trifle  under  2Ol/2-inch  diam- 
eter. 

Q. — Are  solid  cannon-balls  used 
any  more? 

A. — Practically  every  projectile  from 
every  kind  of  cannon  nowadays  is  an  ex- 
plosive shell — that  is,  a  conical  steel  shell 
that  has  in  its  pointed  head  a  large  hollow- 
chamber  filled  with  high  explosive.  Some 
of  these  explosive  shells  have  a  contact 
primer  in  their  points — a  primer  that  ex- 
plodes the  charge  when  the  projectile 
strikes.  Most  shells,  however,  are  fitted 
with  a  time-fuse  so  set  that  the  shell 
explodes  in  a  certain  number  of  seconds 
after  it  leaves  the  muzzle  of  the  gun. 

Q. — Is  it  possible  to  set  a  time- 
fuse accurately? 

A. — Yes.  A  modern  artillerist  knows 
to  the  fraction  of  a  second  how  long  it 
requires  for  his  projectile  to  go  a  certain 
distance.  Range-finders  and  aeroplane 
observation  (spotting)  enable  him  to  fig- 
ure to  the  foot  just  how  far  away  the 
target  is.  The  time-fuse  is  set  in  the 
pointed  snout  of  the  shell,  and  adjusted 
just  right  with  a  key  the  moment  before 
it  is  shoved  into  the  gun. 


Q. — Are  the  great  twelve  and 
fourteen-inch  shells  exploded 
by  time-fuses? 

A. — No.  These  huge  shells  are  used 
chiefly  against  ships  or  against  fortifica- 
tions. They  are  made  to  explode  on  im- 
pact— by  "percussion,"  as  artillerists  call 
it.  There  is  a  firing  pin  in  the  sharp 
point  of  the  shell,  and  when  the  projec- 
tile strikes  this  pin  is  driven  home  and 
explodes  fulminate  of  mercury,  which,  in 
turn,  explodes  (detonates)  the  big  burst- 
ing charge. 

In  most  cases  these  firing  mechanisms 
in  the  big  shells  are  so  set  that  the  pro- 
jectile has  time  first  to  smash  through 
the  ship's  armor,  so  that  it  shall  explode 
inside. 

Q. — What  are  time-fuses  like? 

A. — They  are  of  a  vast  variety  of  de- 
signs. For  many  years  there  have  been 
specialists  in  every  army  in  the  world 
who  studied  and  designed  little  else  but 
fuses.  Some  time-fuses  are  simply  little 
contrivances  that  contain  a  powder-fuse 
of  a  determined  length.  This  is  lit  by  the 
discharge  of  the  gun,  and,  at  about  the 
time  that  the  projectile  reaches  its  goal, 
the  flame  reaches  the  explosive  charge. 
Other  fuses  are  operated  by  little  vanes 
that  revolve  as  the  projectile  speeds 
through  the  air.  Still  others  operate  by 
clockwork  mechanism. 

Q. — What  is  the  artillery  equip- 
ment of  the  American  Army? 

A. — The  War  Department  decided  in 
1917  on  the  practical  adoption  of  the 
French  75-millimeter  (2.955-inch)  field 
gun ;  a  continuance  of  3-inch  field  guns 
(American  pattern)  for  use  in  camps  at 
home ;  Colts,  Browning,  Vickers-Maxim 
and  Chauchat  automatic  machine  guns ; 
47-inch  field  guns,  6.io-inch,  8-inch,  9.2- 
Inch  and  io.5-inch  howitzers ;  Lewis  ma- 
chine guns  for  aeroplane  work. 

Q. — What  is  a  howitzer? 

A. — Its  prototype  is  the  ancient  ballista 
of  the  Romans,  a  machine  which  hurled 
great  stones  in  a  mighty  arc  through  the 
air,  so  that,  vaulting  the  defending  walls, 
they  fell  on  the  soldiers  behind.  That  is 
to  say,  the  attack  came  from  above,  whilst 
that  of  the  catapult,  the  forerunner  of  the 
modern  gun,  came  from  the  side.  The 
howitzer  of  today  is  really  a  development 
of  the  mortar.  It  is  a  short  piece  of  ord- 
nance, designed,  like  the  old  ballista, 
to  throw  a  heavy  projectile  so  high  into 


Weapons  of  War 


93 


the  air  that  it  can  fall  from  above  on 
objects  behind  cover,  which  would  be 
quite  safe  from  the  ordinary  high-velocity 
gun. 

Q. — Does     it     require     a     heavy 
charge  ? 

A. — A  comparatively  small  charge  is 
needed,  just  enough  to  propel  a  huge 
shell  through  the  air.  It  is  not  the  speed 
of  the  shell  which  does  the  damage,  but 
the  bursting  of  the  large  amount  of  high 
explosive  in  the  shell  itself.  As  all  a 
howitzer  need  to  do  is  to  give  a  great 
shell  a  toss  into  the  air,  so  to  speak,  it 
does  not  need  to  be  a  long  or  very  power- 
ful weapon,  compared  to  a  field  or  naval 
gun,  which  latter  weapon  must  actually 
drive  its  projectile  almost  straight  to  its 
target. 

Q. — How  big  is  a  howitzer? 

A. — The  latest  German  ones  are  no  less 
than  16.5  inches,  inside  diameter.  These 
guns  are,  of  course,  rifled,  and  load  at  the 
breech.  We  get  some  idea  of  the  differ- 
ence between  howitzers  and  guns  by  com- 
paring the  two  British  six-inch  weapons. 
The  six-inch  howitzer  fires  a  steel  shell 
weighing  122  Ibs.,  including  a  lyddite 
bursting  charge  of  19  Ibs.,  while  the  six- 
inch  gun  has  a  loo-lb.  shell,  and  a  ip-lb. 
lyddite  bursting  charge.  The  .  howitzer 
weighs  30  cwts.,  the  gun  7  tons ;  the  for- 
mer is  7  feet  10  inches  long,  the  latter 
23  feet  3  inches. 

Q. — What  does  the  1 6.5-inch  how- 
itzer weigh? 

A. — They  weigh  about  14  tons  and  are 
about  18  feet  long.  The  British  n-inch 
howitzer  weighs  6  tons,  and  is  14  feet 
long. 

Q. — Does  the  weight  include  the 
carriage? 

A. — No ;  the  gun  only.  The  equipment 
of  a  12-inch  howitzer  weighs  about  27 
tons ;  that  of  a  i6.S-inch  gun  would  prob- 
ably be  not  far  short  of  50  tons.  The 
carriage  can,  of  course,  be  taken  to  pieces 
for  transport  purposes. 

Q. — To  transport  a  howitzer  of  this 
size  must  be  a  great  task? 

A. — So  difficult  is  it  that  these  weapons 
are  used  for  siege  purposes  only.  It  is 
said  they  require  specially  prepared  ce- 
ment bases,  and  cannot  be  used  accu- 
rately without  them.  The  Germans  have 


smaller  howitzers,  which  they  use  in  the 
field.  A  12-inch  howitzer  weighs  about 
7  tons. 

Q. — How  are  the  great  howitzers 
transported? 

A. — The  great  howitzers  are  pulled  by 
heavy  motors  called  "caterpillars,"  a  mod- 
ified form  of  engine  with  its  wheels  en- 
circled by  an  endless  steel  band,  and 
driven  by  a  petrol  motor. 

On  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  they  were 
pulled  by  horses,  but  later  mechanical 
transport  was  provided  for  them.  First, 
"Foden  steam  wagons,"  a  kind  of  auto- 
mobile, were  employed,  but  proved  im- 
practical. 

Q. — How  heavy  a  projectile  would 
it  throw? 

__  A. — This  also  is  not  known.  Its  ter- 
rible effects  have  been  seen,  for  these 
guns  reduced  the  forts  at  Liege  by  smash- 
ing the  steel  cupolas  of  the  defending 
cannon  as  if  they  had  been  egg  shells. 
Four  shots  sufficed  to  put  one  of  the 
Namur  forts  entirely  out  of  action.  As 
a  six-inch  naval  gun  fires  a  xoo-lb.  pro- 
•jectile,  and  a  six-inch  howitzer  one  of 
120  Ibs.,  we  may  assume  that  a  i6.5-inch 
howitzer  has  a  shell  weighing  at  least  a 
ton.  (The  16.5  naval  guns  fire  a  pro- 
jectile of  2,200  Ibs.)  A  special  explosive 
is  said  to  be  used,  which  has  a  terrible 
effect.  In  fact,  all  those  wounded  found 
in  the  forts  after  the  shells  had  fallen 
there  were  deaf. 

Q. — What  is  the  range  of  a  how- 
itzer? 

A. — The  n-inch  howitzer  has  an  effec- 
tive range  of  five  miles.  The  i6.5-inch 
•will  naturally  have  more  than  that.  A 
shell  from  one  of  these  guns  might  kill 
an  entire  company. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  these  immense 
howitzers  can  only  fire  twenty 
times  before  wearing  out? 

A. — That  is  probably  incorrect.  We 
know  that  the  great  naval  12-inch  guns 
can  fire  at  least  ninety  rounds  before 
wearing  out.  This  comparatively  short 
life  is  due  to  the  tremendous  heat  and 
the  gases  generated  by  the  explosion, 
which,  in  time,  crack  and  corrode  the 
rifling.  As  already  mentioned,  the  func- 
tion of  a  howitzer  is  to  toss  a  huge  shell 
into  the  air ;  a  huge  charge  _  is  not  re- 
quired, hence  the  life  of  a  howitzer  should 
be  far  longer  than  that  of  a  naval  gun. 


94 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Is  a  big  cannon  useless  after  it 
fires  that  limited  number  of 
shots  ? 

A. — No.  But  it  becomes  inaccurate  and 
no  longer  has  full  range.  The  trouble, 
however,  is  only  with  the  inside  of  the 
bore,  and  this  can  be  replaced  in  the  ord- 
nance works.  It  is  known  as  putting  in 
a  new  core.  It  is,  of  course,  an  opera- 
tion requiring  some  time. 

Q. — Does  it  take  long  to  make  a 
howitzer? 

A. — Nothing  like  as  long  as  to  make  a 
naval  gun.  The  latter  takes  about 
eighteen  months,  working  during  the  day 
only;  it  must  be  wire  wound,  a  process 
which  requires  much  time.  Howitzers 
only  take  weeks,  where  the  guns  require 
months.  It  is  the  mounting  which  takes 
so  long  to  make. 

Q. — Could  howitzers  be  used  in 
naval  warfare? 

A. — No.  It  would  be  impossible  to  hit 
rapidly  moving  ships  with  them.  The 
only  vessels  armed  with  such  weapons 
are  monitors,  which  are  intended  to  at- 
tack land  forces  and  fortifications. 

Q. — Is  the  machine  gun  a  cannon? 

A. — No.  Its  barrel  is  practically  a  riffe 
barrel,  except  that  it  is  heavier  in  weight. 
Its  caliber  is  no  larger  than  that  of  the 
infantry  rifle.  Every  army  tries  to  have 
its  machine  guns  and  its  infantry  rifles 
exactly  alike  in  caliber,  so  that  the  same 
ammunition  can  be  used  for  both. 

Q. — How  does  a  machine  gun  fire? 

A. — It  fires  semi-automatically,  or 
sometimes  automatically.  In  some  pat- 
terns the  cartridges  _  are  fed  into  the 
breech  from  a  revolving  belt.  In  others, 
they  are  fed  in  a  revolving  disk. 

Q. — How  fast  does  a  machine  gun 
fire? 

A. — So  fast  that  the  human  senses  of 
sight  and  hearing  cannot  perceive  the 
separate  shots.  A  modern  machine  gun 
fires  about  ten  shots  a  second,  or  from 
500  to  700  shots  a  minute. 

Q. — What  is  machine-gun  range? 

A. — Its  range  is  about  a  mile,  but  in 
action  it  usually  is  used  at  much  shorter 
ranges  than  that.  Fired  at  a  target  a 


mile  away,  most  of  its  ammunition  would 
be   wasted. 

Q. — Exactly  what  purpose  does  the 
machine  gun  serve? 

A. — The  same  as  that  of  the  infantry 
rifle — that  of  killing  men.  These  two 
are  the  firearms  used  by  armies  for  that 
purpose,  whereas  cannon  are  used  more 
largely  for  making  positions  untenable 
and  thus  routing  large  bodies  of  men. 

Q. — Who    invented    the    machine 
gun? 

A. — The  modern  machine  gun  was  in- 
vented by  Richard  Jordan  Catling.  It 
was  first  used  in  the  Civil  War,  and  con- 
sisted of  ten  revolving  barrels.  The 
French  in  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  also 
used  a  machine  gun,  the  mitrailleuse, 
which  was  worked  with  a  crank.  The 
modern  single-barrel  machine  guns  are 
Vickers-Maxim,  Benet-Mercier,  Hotch- 
kiss,  Colt,  Chauchat,  Lewis  and  Brown- 
ing. 

Q. — What  machine  guns  are  used 
most? 

A. — The  British  army  uses  Vickers- 
Maxim  and  Lewis  largely.  The  French 
use  Chauchat  automatics.  The  American 
army  has  both  Vickers-Maxim  and  Colt. 
The  army  adopted  a  new  gun,  the  Brown- 
ing. For  aeroplane  work  and  sea  service, 
the  Lewis  gun  has  been  adopted.  The 
camps  in  the  United  States  were  supplied 
with  some  specimens  of  the  French  Chau- 
chat, as  well  as  with  Lewis,  Vickers- 
Maxim  and  Colt. 

Q. — What  is  the  Browning  gun? 

A. — The  Browning  type  is  the  very 
newest  type  of  machine  gun.  Early  in 
.1918  it  was  announced  that  its  manufac- 
ture was  being  pushed  forcefully,  and 
that  General  Pershing  had  asked  for  this 
type  in  preference  to  others.  It  is  to  be 
a  wholly  automatic  gun — that  is,  its  oper- 
ator need  merely  pull  the  trigger  and 
hold  it  so.  So  long  as  the  trigger  is  held 
in  that  firing  position,  the  gun  will  shoot 
as  fast  as  the  cartridges  can  pour  into  it. 
After  the  first  shot,  the  recoil  does  it  all 
— ejects  the  fired  cartridge,  throws  a  new 
one  into  the  firing  chamber,  and  dis- 
charges it,  repeating  the  process  so  long 
as  the  cartridge  supply  holds  out. 

Q. — Do  the  guns  not  get  hot  from 
such  tremendous  firing? 

A. — They  get  almost  red-hot.  For  this 
reason  they  all  have  water-cooling  de- 


Weapons  of  War 


95 


vices,  which  generally  consist  of  an  outer 
case  around  the  barrel  filled  with  water. 
One  objection  to  the  guns  has  been  that 
the  steam  thus  generated  often  betrays 
the  gun-position.  The  Browning  ma- 
chine rifle  has  a  device  to  counteract  this, 
and  is  so  constructed  that  350  shots  can 
be  fired  before  the  gun  needs  cooling  off. 
The  Browning  machine  gun  (a  heavier 
type  than  the  rifle)  has  a  water-jacket 
like  other  machine  guns. 

Q. — Can  the  Browning  machine 
gun  be  used  like  a  rifle? 

A. — Yes.  One  pattern,  known  as  the 
Browning  machine  rifle,  can  be  fired  from 
the  shoulder  or  the  hip.  It  weighs  only 
15  pounds.  This  new  American  machine 
rifle  takes  20  cartridges  for  one  load.  All 
that  the  soldier  needs  to  do  is  to  cock  the 
hammer  and  pull  the  trigger.  After  that 
he  needs  merely  keep  his  finger  pressing 
the  trigger  and  the  gun  will  shoot  until 
its  ammunition  is  gone.  That  is  not  a 
long  time,  however — for  the  Browning 
machine  rifle  will  shoot  its  20  shots  in 
from  2l/2  to  3  seconds. 

Q. — How  is  the  Browning  machine 
gun  fired? 

A. — It  is  on  a  tripod  and  the  gunner 
kneels  or  sits  behind  it.  An  endless  cot- 
ton belt  feeds  the  cartridges  into  the 
gun.  The  belt  holds  250  cartridges,  and 
the  gun  fires  them  as  fast  as  they  can  be 
thrown  in  by  the  automatic  feed.  A 
Browning  machine  gun,  in  an  endurance 
test,  fired  20,000  shots  in  2,896  seconds, 
or  almost  10  shots  a  second. 

Q. — Have  the  Germans  many  ma- 
chine guns? 

A. — It  is  now  known  that  the  Germans 
had  about  50,000  of  these  guns  in  the  be- 
ginning, and,  despite  losses  due  to  wear- 
ing out,  scrapping,  or  capture,  it  is  said 
that  the  enemy  has  now  no  less  than 
75,000.  The  Germans  appear  to  supply 
one  machine  gun  to  twenty  men  on  the 
front  line. 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  be- 
tween a  rapid-fire  gun  and  a 
machine  gun  ? 

A. — The  machine  gun  is  of  small  cali- 
ber and  fires  cartridges  of  the  caliber  of 
army  rifle  cartridges,  which  are  fed  into 
it  automatically  as  quickly  as  the  weapon 
can  shoot. 

Rapid-fire  or  quick-fire  guns  are  actual 
cannon  of  calibers  up  to  6  inches,  loaded 


by  hand  at  the  breech  with  large,  fixed 
ammunition;  that  is,  ammunition  which 
is  like  a  cartridge,  containing  both  the 
propulsive  powder  and  the  projectile  in 
one.  These  guns  can  be  fired  as  fast  as 
the  gunners  can  snap  open  the  breech, 
eject  a  fired  shell-casing,  and  ram  in  an- 
other one.  Rigid  practice  and  team-work 
make  possible  an  astounding  number  of 
discharges  in  a  minute. 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  be- 
tween these  quick-firing  guns 
and  the  larger  guns  ? 

A. — The  difference  between  these  quick- 
fire  cannon  and  the  still  larger  sizes  is 
that  the  larger  ones  are  loaded  with  a 
projectile  first,  then  with  powder.  This 
separate  loading  (due  to  the  impractica- 
bility of  making  the  big  projectiles  in 
cartridge  form)  naturally  makes  their 
fire  slower.  Remarkable  speed,  however, 
is  attained  by  good  gun  crews  even  with 
the  biggest  calibers.  Naval  gun  crews 
can  fire  a  number  of  shots  a  minute  with 
the  huge  twelve-  and  fourteen-inch  tur- 
ret guns,  though  each  discharge  entails 
the  handling  of  several  tons  of  powder 
and  steel. 

Q. — Has  American  shell-making 
capacity  increased? 

A. — The  shell-making  capacity  for  75- 
millimeter  (2.955-inch)  and  3-inch  shells 
was  reported  officially  in  January,  1918, 
as  increased  50  per  cent,  and  the  increase 
for  sizes  above  that  was  25  per  cent.  At 
that  time  the  Ordnance  Department  stated 
that  it  had  under  order  59,803,910  shells 
to  be  delivered  in  1918. 

Q. — What  was  our  status  of  can- 
non production  after  we  de- 
clared war? 

A. — In  his  speech  before  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  January 
28,  1918,  the  Secretary  of  War  said  that 
Lewis  machine  guns  for  aerial  use  were 
then  being  manufactured  "in  large  num- 
"bers" ;  that  the  distribution  of  machine 
guns  to  national  draft  camps  was  30  Colt, 
45  Chauchat,  65  Lewis;  National  Army 
cantonments,  50  Colt,  45  Chauchat,  65 
Lewis.  He  said  that  during  January  620 
75-millimeter  field-pieces  (2.955-inch)  had 
to  be  supplied  by  France,  while  Ameri- 
can works  could  turn  out  only  84,  but 
that  by  April  the  ratio  would  be :  French, 
73 ;  American,  231 ;  and  by  December, 
1918,  the  American  output  would  be  433 
a  month.  Against  one  155-millimeter 
(6.io-inch)  howitzer  in  January,  1918, 


Questions  and  Answers 


American  output  would  be  300  a  month 
by  the  end  of  the  year. 

Q. — Has  Germany  everything  need- 
ed for  explosives? 

A. — She  does  not  produce  all  the  raw 
materials,  but  her  chemists  have  been  able 
to  get  what  is  needed  from  other  sub- 
stances. Sulphur,  for  instance,  is  hau.ly 
found  in  Germany,  but  in  the  Hartz  and 
Silesia  there  are  deposits  of  ores  contain- 
ing sulphur,  such  as  galena  (sulphide  of 
lead),  blende  (sulphide  of  zinc),  and 
some  others.  She  has  no  nitre  (salt- 
petre), which  comes  from  India,  Peru 
and  Chili.  When  distilled  with  sulphuric 
acid,  it  yields  nitric  acid,  which  is  used 
in  "nitrating"  glycerine,  cotton,  phenol 
and  toluene.  For  fifteen  years,  however, 
nitric  acid  has  been  won  by  obtaining  the 
nitrogen  from  the  air,  in  Sweden,  and  it 
is  known  that  the  Germans  have  extensive 
plants  for  the  same  purpose.  Glycerine 
is  a  product  of  the  soap  works.  There  is, 
of  course,  plenty  of  coal  tar,  from  which 
phenol  and  toluene  are  won.  Not  only 
have  the  Germans  their  own  coal  mines, 
they  have  the  Belgian  and  French  ones 
also.  The  one  important  thing  they  ap- 
pear to  lack  is  cotton. 

Q. — Can  the  copper  in  fired  cart- 
ridges be  used  again? 

A. — Of  course  it  can.  The  belligerents 
are  all  saving  the  shells  of  the  cartridges 
used  when  at  all  possible.  In  trench  war- 
fare probably  none  are  lost,  either  from 
machine  guns  or  rifles.  This  fact  is 
usually  overlooked  by  those  who  make 
careful  calculations  as  to  the  amount  of 
copper  Germany  must  import,  or  mine  to 
keep  her  armies  supplied.  They  gathered 
all  used  material  on  the  battlefields  from 
the  very  beginning. 

Q. — Has  Germany  enough  iron? 

A. — Plenty.  In  ig>i  i  the  United  States 
mined  443,000,000  tons.  The  United 
Kingdom,  271,900,000;  Germany,  158,000,- 
ooo;  and  France,  38,000,000  (the  latter 
from  mines  now  almost  all  in  German 
possession).  In  the  same  year  the  United 
States  produced  41,000,000  tons  of  iron 
ore,  Germany  29,500,000,  and  the  United 
Kingdom  15,500,000.  Germany  has  made 
great  strides  in  the  manufacture  of  steel 
and  iron.  She  produced  14,800,000  tons 
of  steel  to  England's  6,500,000  tons  in 
191 1,  and  15,300,000  tons  of  pig  iron  to 
England's  9,720,000  tons.  The  United 
States  easily  leads  the  world,  producing 
nearly  24,000,000  of  steel  and  almost  the 


same  quantity  of  pig  iron.  Since  the  war 
the  production  of  iron  and  steel  has,  no 
doubt,  immensely  increased  in  Germany ; 
for  she  is  momentarily  in  possession  of 
all  the  coal  and  iron  in  Belgium  and  some 
two-thirds  of  the  total  production  of 
France. 

Q. — What  is  supposed  to  be  the  life 
of  a  rifle? 

A. — It  is  calculated  that  a  rifle  will  last 
about  a  month  in  active  hard  service. 
This  means  that  80,000  men  would  get 
through  1,000,000  rifles  in  a  year.  But 
please  note  that  this  is  in  "active  hard 
service."  That  is  a  theoretical  condi- 
tion for  which  the  army  command  must 
be  prepared,  because  it  may  become  a 
fact  at  any  moment.  But  in  actuality  it 
will  happen  very  rarely  that  any  one 
body  of  troops  actually  will  fight  hard 
and  continually  for  a  whole  month. 

Q. — What  size  shell  does  an  eigh- 
teen-pounder  gun  fire? 

A. — It  fires  a  shell  3.3  inches  in  diam- 
eter, and  sends  it  3^  miles.  The  thirteen- 
pounder  used  by  British  horse  artillery 
fires  a  3-inch  shell.  Its  range  is  a  little 
greater  than  that  of  the  eighteen-pounder. 
The  famous  French  75-mm.  gun  fires  a 
shell  just  a  shade  less  in  diameter  (2.955 
inches). 

Q. — What  does  enfilade  mean? 

A. — Enfilading  fire  is  the  military  term 
for  a  raking  fire.  A  gun  enfilades  a 
trench  when  it  is  placed  in  such  a  posi- 
tion that  it  can  fire  straight  along  it,  and 
enfilades  troops  when  its  fire  takes  them 
on  the  flank. 

Q. — Did  turpinite  generate  poison- 
ous gases? 

A. — According  to  the  statements  which 
appeared  in  the  papers  and  in  the  cables 
sent  from  London  and  Paris,  turpinite, 
the  invention  of  the  French  scientist  Tur- 
pin,  was  used  during  the  early  days  of 
the  war.  According  to  these  reports, 
when  it  exploded  reddish  fumes  were 
given  off,  which  painlessly  killed  all  in 
the  neighborhood. 

Many  circumstantial  accounts  of  the 
marvelous  effect  on  German  soldiers  were 
cabled  and  printed  in  American  news- 
papers early  in  the  war.  According  to 
some  of  these  dispatches,  whole  com- 
panies of  soldiers  died  so  quickly  on  the 
explosion  of  these  gas-shells  that  the 
dead  were  found  in  exactly  the  attitude 
of  life. 


Weapons  of  War 


97 


Q.— Was  this  before  the  Germans 
used  gas? 

A. — Writing  about  this  explosive  when 
the  accounts  about  its  deadliness  first 
came  out,  in  September,  1914,  Henry 
Stead  of  Australia  said  in  his  Review: 

"It  is  gruesome  to  read  of  the  ghastly 
work  of  the  French  shells.  The  ex- 
plosive used  evidently  gives  off  a 
poisonous  gas,  which  overcomes  all 
men  in  the  immediate  vicinity  and  leaves 
them  dead,  covered  with  a  red  powder. 
In  London  papers  just  to  hand,  M.  Tur- 
pin,  the  inventor  (of  melinite  and  lyddite 
fame),  declares  that  his  invention  is  of 
of  a  terrifying  character,  which  will  modi- 
fy all  present  military  tactics,  and  render 
all  defensive  measures  illusory.  M.  Turpin 
states  further  that  the  French  War  Min- 
ister had  decided  to  use  his  invention. 
The  dum-dum  and  the  explosive  bullet 
have  been  prohibited  by  international  law, 
foes  are  no  longer  permitted  to  poison 
wells  and  streams,  but,  apparently,  these 
shells  are  not  under  the  ban  of  the  na- 
tions. To  use  turpinite,  however,  is  ob- 
viously to  invite  retaliation  by  the  Ger- 
mans. Their  chemists  are  certain  to 
evolve  something  horrible,  and  when  the 
Allies  begin  to  experience  its  effects,  they 
will  not  be  able  to  accuse  the  Germans 
of  beginning  this  sort  of  warfare.  Let 
us  hope  the  turpinite  story  is  greatly  ex- 
aggerated or  untrue." 

Most  other  comments  at  the  time 
showed  that  the  writers  rather  rejoiced 
that  the  French  had  found  so  deadly  an 
offensive  weapon. 

Q. — What  is  the  composition  of  the 
asphyxiating  gas  used  as  a 
weapon?  When  was  it  first 
used  by  the  Germans  ? 

A. — The  Germans  first  used  it  against 
British  soldiers  at  Hill  60,  Ypres,  May, 
1915.  This  gas  is  the  product  of  the 
volatilization  of  liquid  sulphurous  acid 
and  liquefied  chlorine,  a  process  which 
disengages  enormous  quantities  of  vapor. 
It  rolls  in  a  heavy  greenish  yellow  cloud. 
It  ^causes  horrible  suffering,  and  leaves 
pitiable  after-effects,  greatly  injuring  the 
lungs.  A  British  veteran  says,  "The 
ghastliest  wounds  were  sweet  and  pleas- 
ant compared  to  it." 

Q. — Did  the  British  use  shells  with 
poisonous  gas  during  the  Boer 
War? 

A. — They  used  lyddite,  but  the  yellow 
fumes  it  gave  off  were  not  poisonous,  al- 
though the  cables  telling  of  the  surround- 


ing and  shelling  of  Cronje  and  his  force 
near  Kimberley  certainly  conveyed  the 
impression — an  entirely  incorrect  one  as 
it  turned  out — that  many  of  the  Boers 
were  suffocated  where  they  lay. 

Q. — What  is  a  lachrymal  shell? 

A. — It  is  the  name  given  to  a  German 
shell  whose  explosion  causes  a  copious 
flow  of  tears  and  irritation  in  the  eyes. 
There  has  been  considerable  discussion 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  tear-exciting 
substance  employed,  but  thus  far  its  con- 
tents do  not  appear  to  have  been  definitely 
determined.  One  of  the  most  powerful 
of  tear  excitants  is  acrolein,  which  is  ob- 
tained when  fats  of  glycerine  are  burned, 
but  the  enemy  would  certainly  not  destroy 
fatty  substances  in  this  way.  Another 
acrid  gas  is  formaldehyde,  which  may  be 
utilized.  There  is  a  general  opinion, 
however,  that  common  pepper  has  been 
used,  the  tear-exciting  constituent  being 
expelled  from  the  pepper  by  heat.  Large 
quantities  of  red  pepper  are  grown  in 
Hungary,  so  that  there  would  be  no  diffi- 
culty in  obtaining  supplies.  Protective 
measures  are  comparatively  easy  to  adopt 
against  the  tear  shells. 

Q. — Are   both   sides   using   liquid 
fire? 

A. — The  Germans  used  it  first,  accord- 
ing to  all  reports.  The  Allies  have  been 
using  liquid  fire  and  flame  projectors  for 
some  time  now.  The  British  used  it  for 
the  first  time  at  Loos.  The  Italians  have 
been  making  use  of  it  also;  so,  too,  have 
the  Russians.  The  basis  both  of  the 
liquid  fire  and  of  the  flame  used  in  the 
projectors  is  petroleum.  The  exact  com- 
position has  not  been  published.  It  is 
reminiscent  of  the  famous  Greek  Fire 
of  the  ancients.  This  mixture  was  the 
invention  of  one  Callinicus,  an  architect, 
in  the  seventh  century.  What  it  was  com- 
posed of  is  still  a  matter  of  conjecture. 
It  was  presumably  made  of  sulphur  and 
naphtha,  with  quicklime  added.  It  took 
fire  spontaneously  when  wetted,  was  there- 
fore used  against  ships,  or  had  to  have 
•water  thrown  on  it  when  being  pro- 
jected. 

Q. — How  is  liquid  fire  used? 

A. — It  is  sprayed  at  the  hostile 
trenches  from  portable  containers,  known 
as  projectors.  The  projectors  are  brought 
as  close  as  possible,  under  concealment, 
to  the  point  of  attack,  arranged  in  groups 
of  from  50  to  200  and  more,  and  dis- 
charged at  the  desired  moment.  They 
squirt  the  blazing  material  into  the  enemy 
lines,  as  a  fire-engine  would  squirt  water. 


98 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Has  poison  gas  any  effect  upon 
horses  or  dogs? 

A. — Poison  gas  is  equally  destructive 
to  all  forms  of  animal  life,  and  all  horses 
and  dogs  employed  in  the  war  zone  are 
provided  with  specially  designed  gas 
masks.  The  mask  for  horses  consists 
of  a  simple  bag  placed  over  the  animal's 
nostrils  so  that  the  air  breathed  is  taken 
through  the  interstices  of  the  fabric.  The 
bag  is  treated  with  a  chemical  powder, 
which  neutralizes  the  dangerous  gases  be- 
fore they  reach  the  nostrils  of  the  horse. 

Q. — Are  there  many  different  kinds 
of  gas  ? 

A. — Yes.  Very  many.  The  first  gas 
was  a  chlorine  gas.  It  was  projected  in 
waves,  and  could  be  used  only  when  the 
wind  was  right.  This,  however,  was  soon 
replaced  by  chlorine  gas  inclosed  in  shells, 
which  liberated  the  deadly  thing  when 
they  exploded.  Other  gas  followed  in 
quick  order.  One  was  merely  laughing 
gas,  and  incapacitated  its  victims  from 
action  for  a  while,  but  did  no  further 
harm.  Another  was  made  from  mustard, 
and  affected  its  victims  only  temporarily. 

Q. — How  could  men  in  the  open 
be  gassed? 

A. — The  gases  used  are  heavier  than 
the  air.  The  gas,  therefore,  flows  into 
trenches  and  underground  shelters  like 
water,  and  thus  strangles  men  who  hap- 
pen to  be  anywhere  where  air-currents 
may  drive  the  poisonous  fumes. 

Q. — How  can  men  tell  in  time  when 
gas  is  coming? 

A. — Most  gas  shells  explode  with  much 
less  noise  than  is  made  by  any  other 
explosive  shell.  The  odor  also  warns  of 
the  arrival  of  most  gases.  There  is  a 
regular  signal  now  to  warn  of  gas.  A 
green  rocket  is  sent  up  and  every  man 
who  sees  it  knows  that  he  must  put  on 
his  gas  mask  at  once. 

Q. — What  is  phosgene  gas? 

A. — It  is  a  perfectly  odorless  gas.  If 
the  soldiers  are  not  warned  by  identify- 
ing the  peculiar  exploding  sound  which 
the  phosgene  shell  makes,  there  is  no 
other  way  to  discover  it.  It  cannot  be 
detected,  indeed,  until  the  heart  stops 
beating  and  the  victim  falls  dead. 

For  defense  against  this,  men  were  spe- 
cially trained  to  distinguish  the  slight 
difference/  in  tone  between  the  detona- 


tion of  a  gas  shell  and  other  shells,  and 
it  became  their  business  to  watch  for  the 
deadly  arrivals. 

Then  the  Germans  met  this  with  an- 
other move  which  for  a  time  seemed  to 
baffle  all  efforts  to  counteract  it.  They 
mixed  gas  and  explosives  in  the  same 
shell.  This  is  the  form  of  attack  they 
tried  on  the  Americans  in  February  and 
March,  1918. 

As  an  emergency  measure  the  Allies 
then  ordered  gas  masks  to  be  worn  con- 
tinuously, but  the  Germans  invented 
sneeze  bombs  and  tear  bombs  to  force 
the  men  to  take  their  masks  off. 

Q. — Is  there  a  defense  against  gas? 

A. — Yes — one,  and  one  only.  It  is  the 
gas  mask.  The  United  States  is  spending 
millions  now  on  gas  masks,  and  they  are 
as  indispensable  a  part  of  a  soldier's  out- 
fit as  cartridges.  It  is  estimated  that  20 
per  cent,  at  least,  of  the  shells  that  are 
fired  are  gas  shells.  So  vast  a  part  of 
war  has  gas  become  that  the  United 
States  has  a  Gas  Defense  Service  in  its 
Medical  Department. 

Q. — Were  gas  masks  invented  in 
this  war? 

A. — Soon  after  the  first  German  gas 
attack  English  and  French  women  sent 
to  the  front  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
home-made  gas  masks.  For  the  most 
part,  they  were  merely  bandages  impreg- 
nated with  chemicals  to  wrap  around  the 
mouth  and  nose. 

The  next  thing  in  gas  masks  was  a 
cloth  helmet  or  hood  dipped  in  neutral- 
izing solution,  the  bottom  of  which  was 
tucked  in  the  collar.  This  hood  had  two 
eye  goggles.  Air  was  breathed  in  through 
the  cloth.  The  chemicals  in  the  cloth  fil- 
tered the  incoming  air,  but  there  was  no 
provision  for  exhalation,  and  within  a 
short  time  the  man  was  unable  to  get  a 
proper  amount  of  good  air. 

The  next  improvement  was  to  put  in  an 
exhaust  or  outlet  for  the  exhaled  air. 
This  type  of  mask  has  been  used  exten- 
sively. Its  disadvantages  are  that  a  man 
cannot  hear  well,  the  chemicals  in  the 
cloth  cause  him  trouble,  and  the  mask 
cannot  long  remain  impermeable  to  gases. 

Q. — What  gas  mask  are  the  Amer- 
icans using? 

A. — A  very  scientific  respirator  mask 
with  a  face  piece  of  absolutely  impervious 
material,  with  glass  or  celluloid  eye 
pieces,  held  in  place  by  rubber  bands 
around  the  head.  A  canister  is  carried 
in  a  small  knapsack  and  a  flexible  tube 
connects  with  the  face  piece. 


Weapons  of  War 


99 


Inside  the  face  piece  is  a  small  wire 
clamp  with  rubber  pads,  which  fits  on 
the  nose  and  forces  the  wearer  to  breathe 
through  his  mouth.  The  end  of  a  flexible 
tube  has  a  rubber  mouthpiece,  through 
which  the  man  breathes.  The  incoming 
breath  comes  through  the  canister,  which 
is  filled  with  several  layers  of  special 
chemicals  of  an  absorbent  nature,  that 
neutralize  or  render  harmless  the  gas- 
laden  air.  The  outgoing  breath  passes 
outside  the  face  piece  through  a  small 
rubber  valve. 

Q. — Is  the  American  gas  mask  like 
the  German? 

A. — No.  In  the  German  mask  the  con- 
tainer for  the  neutralizing  chemicals  is 
screwed  into  a  ring  in  the  bottom  of  the 
mask.  There  is  no  outlet  valve  for  the 
exhaled  air,  both  incoming  and  outgoing 
air  passing  through  the  container. 

Q. — How  are  the  gas  masks  used? 

A. — The  mask  is  carried  in  a  knapsack 
at  the  left  hip,  supported  by  a  shoulder 
band.  When  troops  approach  a  danger 
zone,  the  straps  are  shortened  and  the 
knapsack  is  shifted  to  rest  high  on  the 
chest,  ready  for  instant  use.  This  is 
known  as  the  "alert  position."  The  sol- 
dier has  merely  to  open  the  knapsack, 
pull  out  the  flexible  hose  with  the  face 
piece  attached,  put  the  rubber  mouth- 
piece in  his  mouth  and  adjust  the  bands 
over  his  head.  The  nose  clip  can  easily 
be  adjusted  from  the  outside  after  the 
face  piece  is  on.  This  nose  clip  insures 
that  even  if  the  fabric  of  the  face  piece 
should  be  pierced,  the  soldier  would  still 
be  breathing  entirely  through  his  mouth. 

Q. — Do  the  American  gas  masks 
furnish  absolute  protection? 

A. — The  present  American  mask  affords 
more  protection  than  any  other  device  in 
existence.  The  chemicals  in  the  canister 
will  neutralize  the  heaviest  concentra- 
tions of  gases  for  a  period  at  least  ten 
times  longer  than  the  possible  duration 
of  any  gas  attack. 

For  every  mask  there  is  at  least  one 
extra  canister.  These  canisters  are  de- 
tachable from  the  tube.  When  a  canis- 
ter has  lost  its  efficiency,  it  can  be  de- 
tached, and  a  new  canister  put  on. 

A  Gas  Defense  School  has  been  estab- 
lished in  each  cantonment,  and  a  gas 
mask  factory,  with  4,000  workers,  has 
been  organized. 


Q. — Was  gas  ever  used  before? 

A. — The  Chines*  used  the  famous 
"stink-pot"  ages  ago.  Devices  that  made 
strangling  smoke  were  used  in  the  siege 
of  Troy. 

Q. — What  is  a  glacis? 

A. — The  name  given  to  the  ground  in 
front  of  a  fortification.  It  is  sloped  so 
that  it  can  be  covered  thoroughly  by  the 
fire  from  the  guns  of  the  fort 

Q. — Are  the  tanks  really  of  much 
service  in  the  war? 

A. — When  they  first  appeared  the  tanks 
seem  to  have  done  excellent  work,  but 
there  has  been  no  weapon  ever  devised 
against  which  more  or  less  effective  de- 
fence has  not  been  found.  Had  the  Brit- 
ish marshalled  a  huge  array  of  tanks  be- 
fore the  enemy  lines  they  might  have 
pushed  their  way  through,  but  the  few 
tanks  first  employed,  though  very  use- 
ful, could  not  alone  smash  the  enemy 
defences.  When  the  British  had  more 
of  the  monsters  ready,  the  Germans  had 
discovered  a  more  or  less  effective  reply 
to  them  in  the  shape  of  a  field  gun,  which 
they  were  able  to  bring  into  the  trenches. 
The  Germans  made  the  same  mistake 
when  they  first  used  poisonous  gas.  They 
experimented  on  a  short  front,  and,  when 
they  were  ready  to  utilize  the  new  weapon 
on  a  great  scale,  gas  masks  had  rendered 
it  more  or  less  harmless.  Had  they  be- 
gun on  the  entire  front  at  once  they 
might  have  reached  Paris. 

Q. — How    are    the    British    tanks 
armed? 

A. — There  are  two  types  of  British 
tanks.  One  carries  two  six-pounder, 
rapid-fire  Hotchkiss  guns  and  four  Lewis 
machine  guns.  The  other  is  armed  with 
six  Lewis  guns.  Each  type  weighs  about 
thirty  tons,  and  is  manned  by  an  officer 
and  seven  men.  The  armor  plate  is  of 
J4-inch  steel  of  a  special  composition, 
and  has  great  powers  of  resistance  against 
rifle,  machine  gun  and  shrapnel  fire. 

Q. — What  is  the  best  weapon  used 
against  the  tanks? 

A. — The  most  efficacious  weapon  against 
the  tanks  is  the  armor-piercing  bullet.  It 
is  feared  by  the  crews  of  the  tanks,  be- 
cause it  pierces  the  armor  and  produces 
flame  which  frequently  sets  fire  to  the 
fuel  reservoir. 

Hand  grenades,  employed  one  at  a  time, 
are  useless.  It  is  necessary  to  employ  a 


100 


Questions  and  Answers 


concentrated  charge  (several  cylinders 
grouped  around  a  central  grenade),  and 
throw  it  under  the  tank ;  but  this  is  a 
difficult  task. 

Machine  guns  are  useless  against  them. 
But  the  tanks,  in  turn,  are  helpless  against 
steel  shells  from  any  of  the  field  artillery 
guns  used  to-day. 

Q. — Have   the    Germans    captured 
any  tanks? 

A. — Yes.  In  February,  1918,  pictures 
reached  America  showing  a  tank  captured 
at  Cambrai  parading  through  Berlin  from 
the  Tempel-hof  parade  ground  to  the 
zoological  gardens. 

Q. — Is  the  tank  not  a  brand  new 
war  invention? 

A. — They  were  used  exactly  2,157  years 
before  they  made  their  appearance  on  the 
British-German  lines.  In  the  tremendous 
siege  of  the  "Queen  of  Africa"  Carthage, 
the  Romans  attacked  the  walls  with  "tor- 
toises"— immense  tortoise-shaped  tanks 
on  wheels,  whose  backs,  covered  with 
timber,  iron  scales,  hides  and  straw  pad- 
ding protected  the  soldiers  underneath 
against  the  liquid  fire,  projectiles  and 
boiling  water  that  rained  down  on  them 
from  above.  They  also  attacked  with  a 
huge  armored  tower  on  wheels,  the  fam- 
ous "Hellepolis."  The  attacks  failed. 
The  Carthaginians  devised  a  defense 
against  each  new  apparatus  in  turn. 

Q. — What  does  the  word  "abatis" 
mean? 

A. — It  is  a  military  term  to  describe 
one  of  the  obstacles  which,  when  the  war 
began,  were  used  in  defense  of  field 
works.  Such  defense  is  probably  obso- 
lete now.  It  was  formed  of  the  limbs  of 
trees,  twelve  or  fifteen  feet  long,  laid 
close  together,  the  larger  branches  pointed 
towards  the  enemy  and  the  stems  secured 
to  the  ground.  The  object  of  an  abatis 
is,  of  course,  to  break  up  the  enemy's 
advance.  Nowadays  heavy  explosive 
shells  sweep  such  obstacles  out  of  the  way 
with  ease.  Barbed  wire  takes  its  place 
now. 

Q. — Who  used  barbed  wire  first  in 
modern  warfare? 

A. — The  Boers  in  South  Africa,  and 
then  the  Russians  and  Japanese  in  Man- 
churia. It  is  now  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  defensive  appliances. 


Q. — How  is  barbed  wire  cut  by  the 
soldiers? 

A. — The  wire  is  not  actually  cut,  it  is 
swept  away  by  the  blast  made  by  special 
shells.  These  are  not  made  with  thick 
walls,  as  it  is  not  the  flying  fragments 
which  do  the  damage  when  the  shell  ex- 
plodes, but  actually  the  wind  of  the  ex- 
plosion. A  Dumezil  shell  will  clean  up 
a  network  of  wire  over  an  area  of  about 
100  square  feet.  These  special  shells  are 
thrown  a  distance  of  about  1,200  feet  by 
small  trench  howitzers. 

Q. — Can  the  most  complicated  wire 
entanglements  be  swept  aside 
in  this  way? 

A. — The  ordinary  entanglements  can- 
not stand  against  these  shells,  but  there 
are  methods  of  arranging  the  wire  in 
spirals,  which  effectively  defy  the  shells. 
In  fact,  the  more  the  spirals  are  bom- 
barded the  more  the  different  coils  be- 
come entangled,  forming  an  inextricable 
jungle,  on  which  hostile  attacks  are  vain. 
The  French  have  greatly  developed  this 
method  of  wiring,  which  they  call  Brun 
networks. 

Q. — Who  invented  barbed  wire? 

A. — An  American,  Colonel  Elbridge 
who,  it  is  said,  used  his  wife's  hairpins 
for  barbs  in  his  early  experimental  work. 

Q. — Is  gasolene  used  much  in  mod- 
ern war? 

A. — It  has  made  an  immense  difference. 
Owing  to  its  use  transport  has  been 
greatly  accelerated,  and  guns  especially 
have  been  moved  with  wonderful  speed. 
The  Germans  have  perfected  steel-clad 
motor-cars  with  disappearing  turrets, 
from  which  heavy,  rapid-fire  guns  pour 
streams  of  lead.  It  is  these  "moving 
forts"  which  have  given  the  Germans  an 
advantage,  and  made  up,  to  some  extent, 
the  poor  shooting  of  their  infantry.  The 
heavy  howitzers  and  field  guns  are  dragged 
by  gasolene  or  oil-driven  engines,  and  it 
is  used  for  the  ambulance  cars,  and  all 
manner  of  transport. 

Q. — Does  anybody  know  the 
amount  of  British  orders  for 
munitions  placed  here? 

A. — From  August,  1914,  to  the  middle 
of  July,  1917  (about  3  years),  the  British 
Government  placed  orders  for  ordnance 
of  all  kinds  and  all  kinds  of  ammunition, 
totaling  $1,308,000,000.  An  illustration 


Weapons  of  War 


101 


of  the  scale  of  American  preparation  is 
the  fact  that  in  the  seven  months  follow- 
ing the  entrance  of  the  United  States  into 
the  war  (from  the  middle  of  May  to  the 
middle  of  December,  1917),  the  Ordnance 
Department  of  the  United  States  Army 
placed  orders  for  $1,500,000,000. 

Q. — Were  dum-dum  bullets  actual- 
ly used  in  this  war  as  charged 
by  both  sides? 

A. — Probably  not,  although  both  sides 
have  accused  each  other  of  making  use  of 
them.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  wounds 
men  have  received  on  both  sides  appear 
to  have  been  caused  by  this  expanding 
bullet.  The  explanation  is  that  the  Ger- 
man Army,  the  British  Army,  and  others 
use  what  is  called  the  "spitz"  (pointed) 
bullet.  This,  when  it  goes  through  soft 
parts,  makes  a  very  small  hole,  but  when 
it  encounters  an  obstacle,  like  a  bone, 
sometimes  turns  sidewards,  and  inflicts  a 
horrible  wound.  The  scarcity  of  anti- 
mony for  hardening  the  lead  has  probably 
caused  very  soft  bullets  to  be  made  in 
Germany. 

Q. — Do  the  British  shells  contain, 
far  more  copper  than  the  Ger- 
man? 

A.— They  used  to,  at  least.  The  Brit- 
ish fuses  contain  24  ounces  of  gunmetal, 
and  the  French  and  German  only  3^ 
ounces.  The  Germans  are  fully  aware  of 
the  fact,  and  offer  rewards  for  all  British 
fuses  collected.  Assuming  that  their  ar- 
tillery fired  40,000  rounds  into  the  Ger- 
man trenches  in  a  day,  and  only  half  the 
fuses  were  collected,  the  guns  at  very 
great  cost  would  actually  have  supplied, 
the  enemy  with  enough  copper  for  250,000 
shells  1 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  Germany  was 
short  of  shells  after  the  battle 
of  the  Marne? 

A. — Apparently  she  was,  although  In 
those  early  stages  of  the  war,  before  the 
trench  dead-lock  was  established,  nothing- 
like  the  number  of  shells  and  guns  was 
needed  as  is  required  to-day. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  bridgehead? 

A. — A  bridgehead  is  a  position  which, 
commands  the  crossing  of  a  river.  It  is 
not  necessarily  at  an  actual  bridge  to  span 
the  stream.  Owing  to  the  long  range 
of  modern  guns  a  bridgehead  may  ac- 
tually have  to  be  a  long  way  away  from 
the  river  itself,  as  its  function  is  to  pre- 


vent the  enemy  artillery  from  interfering 
with  the  crossing  army,  and  to  hold  a 
position  that  shall  enable  the  big  body 
of  the  army  behind  to  form  in  security. 

Q. — Is  the  French  75  the  greatest 
artillery  weapon? 

A. — Among  quick-firing  guns  it  is  said 
to  be  pre-eminent.  It  has  this  immense 
advantage  that  it  does  not  require  to 
be  re-aimed  after  each  discharge.  The 
recoil  is  entirely  taken  up  by  the  shock- 
absorbers  and  the  gun  points  at  exactly 
the  same  mark  all  the  time.  The  follow- 
ing comparison  between  the  75  and  its 
German  rival  is  interesting: 

French  75.  German  77. 

Length                              8  feet  724  feet 

Maximum  range         3^4  miles  3  miles 

Shots  per  minute               25  9 

Weight  of  shrapnel        15  Ibs.  14  Ibs. 

W'ght  explosive  shell  II  Ibs.  n  Ibs. 

Initial  velocity  sec.     1720  feet  1510  feet 

Bullets  in  shrapnel          300  300 

Weight  of  cannon  2250  Ibs.  1950  Ibs. 

Gunners  with  each  piece  7  8 

Guns  in  battery                   4  6 

Batteries  per  army  corps  30  24 
Total  number  of  cannon 

(1914)                               2520  3600 

Q. — Has  the  shell  of  the  French  75 
been  altered  since  the  war? 

A. — The  main  alteration  has  been  the 
increased  number  of  fragments  into  which 
the  projectile  breaks.  One  of  these 
shells  now  bursts  into  more  than  2,000 
pieces,  some  of  them  so  small  as  to 
wound  fatally  without  making  a  conspic- 
uous abrasion  on  the  skin.  The  tiniest 
of  particles  possesses  so  great  a  velocity 
as  to  inflict  grave  injuries  at  30  or  40 
yards  from  the  spot  where  the  shell 
bursts. 

Q. — Why  have  the  Germans  not 
mastered  the  secret  of  the 
French  75*8? 

A. — Presumably  they  do  know  the  se- 
cret, but  evidently  do  not  find  it  prac- 
ticable or  advisable  to  replace  their  own 
77  quick-firing  gun  with  the  French 
model. 

Q. — How  fast  can  the  75  fire? 

A. — The  famous  75  will  shoot  as 
many  as  16  shells  a  minute,  and  many 
of  them  have  fired  2,000  shells  in  a  single 
day,  although  they  are  seldom  called  upon 
for  such  an  achievement.  It  keeps  500 
workmen  constantly  busy  to  supply  one 


102 


Questions  and  Answers 


of  the  75's  with  shells  once  it  gets  into 
action. 

Q. — Is  the  Ross  rifle  still  used  by 
the  Canadian  troops  in  France? 

A. — No.  Although  this  rifle  had  stood 
pre-war  tests  exceedingly  well,  Lord 
French  in  1915  urged  its  entire  with- 
drawal. It  appears,  however,  to  have 
been  used  till  August,  1916,  when  the 
equipment  of  Canadian  troops  with  the 
regulation  British  arm,  the  Lee-Enfield, 
was  begun. 

Q. — Can  shell-torn  battlefields  be 
cultivated? 

A.— There  has  been  a  general  belief 
that  agricultural  lands  devastated  by  shell 
fire  will  require  a  decade  of  cultivation 
to  bring  them  to  their  former  fruitful- 
ness.  An  American  farming  expert,  how- 
ever, who  has  given  the  subject  much 
study,  and  who  has  personally  visited  the 
battlefields,  says  that  not  only  can  the 
lands  be  recovered,  but  that  they  can  be 
made  just  as  fruitful  as  ever. 

Q. — What  is  a  communication 
trench? 

A. — This  trench,  known  by  the  soldiers 
as  "C.  T.,"  is  a  trench  leading  back  from 
the  front  or  firing  line  to  the  rear,  as  pro- 
tection to  those  bringing  up  supplies,  etc. 

Q. — What  are  dug-outs? 

A. — They  are  the  underground  shelters 
or  caves  in  the  trenches  in  which  soldiers 
on  duty  may  rest,  relatively  safe  from 
the  danger  of  exploding  shells  or  bullets. 
They  constitute  also  a  definite  part  of 
the  front-line  fortifications,  as  soldiers 
can  be  dislodged  from  such  cave-like 
strongholds  only  by  throwing  bombs  into 
them  or  employing  suffocating  gas. 

Q. — Is  direct  injury  achieved  by 
artillery  fire  against  enemy 
batteries  ? 

A. — It  has  been  thought  by  some  that 
the  only  thing  that  counts  is  bombardment 
of  the  infantry.  General  Ludendorff, 
Chief  of  the  German  General  Staff,  in  a 
report  dated  October  4,  1917,  shows,  how- 
ever, that  artillery  fire  against  artillery 
positions  is  a  very  serious  matter.  The 
average  number  of  guns  lost  by  a  single 
German  Army  in  a  single  month  were 
stated  to  amount  to  1,455,  of  which  870 
were  field  guns  and  585  heavy  pieces.  Of 
the  total  of  1,455  about  655  were  lost 
through  wear,  and  800  through  Allied 
bombardments. 


Q._What  is  meant  by  a  "Silent 
Susie"? 

A. — A  German  high  explosive  shell  not 
heard  until  it  bursts.  As  most  of  the 
large  shells  can  be  both  seen  and  heard, 
because  their  swift  flight  makes  a  loud 
screaming  or  whistling  sound,  the  "Si- 
lent Susie"  is  more  to  be  feared  than 
some  of  the  others. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  a  "Whiz- 
Bang"? 

A. — The  lightest  shrapnel  shells  used  by 
both  sides. 

Q. — What  is  shrapnel? 

A. — Shrapnel  is  an  explosive  shell,  fired 
like  other  explosive  shells  from  a  rifled 
cannon.  But,  unlike  all  other  explosive 
shells,  which  have  thick  steel  walls  to 
make  their  bursting  power  effective,  the 
shrapnel  shell  is  only  a  thin  steel  casing 
— a  "can,"  so  to  speak.  The  old  term 
"cannister"  is  based  on  this  very  fact. 

The  shrapnel  shell  is  filled  with  explo- 
sive like  other  shells,  but,  in  addition,  is 
packed  with  bullets  by  the  hundreds.  A 
time  fuse  is  so  adjusted  that  the  shell 
shall  explode  when  it  is  over  a  position 
occupied  by  troops.  The  bursting  of  the 
shells  drives  the  bullets  in  a  spreading 
rain  of  metal  with  deadly  force. 

It  is  the  most  savage  form  of  artillery 
attack  known  against  troops  that  are  at 
all  in  the  open.  To  be  truly  effective, 
however,  it  requires  extreme  accuracy. 

Q. — Why  is  it  called  shrapnel? 

A. — It  is  named  for  its  inventor,  a 
British  General  named  Shrapnel,  who 
served  in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  dying  in  1842. 

Q. — Are  trench  periscopes  like  sub- 
marine periscopes? 

A. — Very  much  so,  both  in  principle 
and  construction,  being  a  tube,  more  or 
less  long,  with  prisms  and  mirrors  in  it 
which  reflect  to  the  observer  below  the 
image  seen  by  the  great  glass  "eye"  at 
the  top.  The  trench  periscope,  however, 
is  easier  to  hide  from  the  enemy  than  the 
submarine  periscope.  It  can  be  erected 
among  tree  branches,  or  in  similar  "cam- 
ouflage" so  that  no  hostile  watcher  is 
very  likely  to  sight  it.  Some  of  the  peri- 
scopes are  small,  but  others  are  giants 
that  are  moved  from  place  to  place  on  lit- 
tle carts.  These  monsters  have  tele- 
scopic tubes,  which  can  be  raised  so  high 
that  the  observer  can  look  over  all  sorts 
of  obstacles  into  enemy  positions. 


OUR  ARMY 


Q. — What  officer  commands  all  the 
American  war  forces? 

A. — No  officer  can  ever  have  their  com- 
mand, because  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  makes  the  President  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy. 
His  powers  as  such  are  those  of  military 
command  and  include,  of  course,  the  right 
to  dispose  the  national  forces  where  they 
can  be  used  to  best  advantage.  In  the 
War  of  1812,  in  the  Mexican  War,  in  the 
Spanish  War,  in  the  Boxer  rebellion,  and, 
recently,  in  Mexico,  American  troops  were 
thus  sent  to  fight  on  foreign  soil.  These, 
however,  were  all  either  volunteers  or 
regulars. 

Q.__Who  is  the  Chief  of  Staff  of 
the  U.  S.  Army? 

A. — Major-General  Peyton  C.  March 
assumed  these  duties  in  March,  1918,  after 
Major-General  Tasker  H.  Bliss  (who  had 
succeeded  Major-General  Scott  in  Sept- 
ember, 1917)  had  gone  to  Europe  to  rep- 
resent the  United  States  in  the  Supreme 
War  Council. 

Q. — What  was  the  peace  strength 
of  the  regular  army? 

A. — It  consisted  of  5,014  commissioned 
officers  and  92,973  enlisted  men,  which  in- 
cluded about  6,000  so-called  Philippine 
Scouts.  In  November,  1917,  the  strength 
of  the  Regular  Army  was  approximately 
7,500  officers  and  360,000  enlisted  men. 

Q. — What    was    the    strength    of 
America's  army  in  1918? 

A. — At  the  beginning  of  1918  the  regu- 
lar army  consisted  of  10,250  officers  and 
475,000  enlisted  men,  the  National  Guard 
of  10,031  officers  and  400,000  enlisted  men, 
the  National  Army  of  480,000  men,  and 
the  reserve  of  84,575  officers  and  72,750 
enlisted  men,  a  total  of  1,539,485  officers 
and  men. 

Q. — Is  there  a  National  Guard  or- 
ganization in  the  U.  S.  army? 

A. — The  National  Guard  service,  ap- 
proximating 300,000  men,  was  incor- 
porated into  Federal  service  August  5, 
1917- 


Q. — What  is  the  smallest  army  or- 
ganization? 

A. — The  smallest  unit  or  "team"  in  the 
Army  is  the  squad.  A  squad  usually  con- 
sists of  eight  men,  one  of  whom  is  the 
leader;  he  is  called  the  "corporal."  The 
object  of  the  company  commander  is  to 
make  this  a  permanent  unit  by  putting 
men  together  who  will  work  well  in  uni- 
son. 

Two,  three,  or  four  squads  (usually 
three)  may  be  joined  in  the  next  higher 
unit,  which  is  called  a  "platoon."  The 
platoon  is  not  so  permanent  as  a  squad, 
but  is  formed  whenever  there  is  need  for 
it. 

Q. — How  is  a  company  made  up? 

A. — The  company  is  made  up  at  full 
strength  of  150  men;  this  is  about  18 
squads  or  6  platoons.  This  number  is 
"war  strength"  in  our  old  tables  of  or- 
ganization; the  first  division  now  in 
France  has  200  men  per  company.  It  is 
probable  the  strength  may  become  250 
per  infantry  company.  Figures  for  the 
number  of  squads  and  of  platoons  are 
never  definitely  fixed.  A  company  in 
the  field  is  seldom  at  full  strength,  and 
it  may  be  convenient  at  any  time  to 
change  the  numbers  of  squads  and  pla- 
toons. 

Q. — What  is  an  army  division? 

A. — A  division  is  a  group  of  various 
branches  of  the  Army,  making  the  whole 
body  complete  in  itself — that  is,  able  to 
fight  by  itself,  feed  itself,  transport  its 
supplies,  etc.  Thus,  the  American  In- 
fantry Division,  as  organized  for  modern 
war,  has  not  only  infantry,  but  cavalry, 
artillery,  engineers,  signal  and  quarter- 
master corps,  medical  and  sanitary  troops 
and  supplies,  etc. 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  newspaper 
articles  the  reference  to  a  "division"  fre- 
quently means  a  mere  body  of  men  de- 
tached on  some  special  expedition.  This 
is  not  an  Army  division.  It  is  an  expe- 
ditionary force  only.  But  such  an  expe- 
ditionary force,  if  operating  far  away, 
may  have  all  the  organization  of  a  di- 
vision on  a  miniature  scale. 

Q. — How  big  is  an  army  division? 

A.— A  United  States  Army  Infantry 
Division  has  two  infantry  brigades  (four 
regiments),  two  machine-gun  battalions, 


103 


104 


Questions  and  Answers 


two  regiments  of  light  artillery,  one  regi- 
ment of  heavy  artillery,  one  trench-mortar 
battery,  one  extra  (divisional)  machine- 
gun  battalion,  one  regiment  of  engineers, 
one  field  signal  battalion  with  all  the 
necessary  "trains"  for  transport.  The 
total  strength  is  887  officers  and  26,265 
enlisted  men. 

This  is  much  larger  than  "divisions" 
used  to  be.  The  size  of  divisions  in  most 
armies  used  to  be  about  19,000  men. 

Q. — How  many  men  are  in  a  Brit- 
ish division? 

A. — In  pre-war  days  such  a  division 
would  have  been  composed  of  twelve  in- 
fantry regiments,  nine  batteries  of  18- 
pounders,  two  batteries  of  5-inch  howit- 
zers, three  batteries  of  4.5-inch  heavy  bat- 
tery siege  guns,  ammunition  column,  two 
field  companies  and  engineers,  signal  com- 
pany, two  mounted  infantry  companies, 
three  field  ambulances  of  sixteen  wagons 
each,  and  a  baggage  train.  In  all  it 
would  consist  of  19,111  officers  and  men, 
6,773  horses,  24  machine  guns,  54  field  18- 
pounder  guns,  12  howitzers,  4  "long 
Toms,"  198  ammunition  wagons,  8  motor 
cars,  274  two-horse  wagons,  232  four- 
horse  wagons,  241  six-horse  wagons,  135 
bicycles.  In  a  division  in  the  field  to-day 
there  would  certainly  be  much  more  ar- 
tillery, far  greater  numbers  of  machine 
guns,  and  practically  all  the  horse  equi- 
page will  have  been  replaced  by  motors. 

Q. — What  is  the  reason  for  divid- 
ing an  army  up  into  squads, 
regiments,  etc.? 

A. — Fundamentally,  the  same  reason 
that  leads  business  men  to  divide  their 
business  organizations  into  various  de- 
partments. If  an  army  were  in  one  body, 
it  would  not  only  be  absolutely  unwieldy, 
but  the  commanding  general  and  his  staff 
could  not  possibly  issue  orders  to  it. 

Under  the  system  of  dividing  it,  the 
commander-in-chief  is  able  to  issue  his 
order  to  the  entire  army  under  him  with 
the  utmost  ease  and  quickness  by  simply 
sending  the  orders  to  the  division  com- 
manders. These,  in  turn,  do  not  need  to 
try  to  reach  their  entire  divisions,  which, 
it  must  be  remembered,  may  be  scattered 
over  many,  miles  of  country.  They  simply 
give  the  orders  to  their  brigade  com- 
manders, and  these  transmit  the  command 
to  the  regimental  headquarters.  Thus, 
an  army  order,  instead  of  needing  to  be 
passed  to  thousands  of  officers,  needs  to 
be  sent  to  only  a  very  few  headquarters, 
and  the  commanding  general  always 
knows  where  these  are  at  a  given  mo- 
ment 


Q.— What  is  a  battalion? 

A.— -In  the  American  Army  it  is  an 
organized  force  of  about  1,000  men  (if 
composed  of  infantry) — that  is,  it  is  not 
a  full  regiment,  but  it  is  a  body  cf  men 
formidable  in  number  and  yet  sufficiently 
compact  to  be  easily  handled. 

In  former  times  a  battalion  was  of  in- 
terest to  army  men  chiefly  as  being  a  con- 
venient and  useful  administrative  unit  of 
the  army  organization ;  but  in  the  great 
war  it  has  become  one  of  the  very  im- 
portant sub-divisions  of  armies  for  direct 
fighting. 

The  strength  of  a  battalion  varies  in 
the  various  armies.  Some  have  expanded 
it  so  that  it  is  almost  as  big  as  a  regi- 
ment; but  the  best  practice  appears  to  be 
the  one  that  has  been  adopted  for  the 
fighting  organization  of  the  United  States. 

Under  this  system,  a  battalion  of  in- 
fantry has  1,000  men  under  26  officers, 
the  commanding  officer  being  a  major. 

The  other  branches  of  the  service  have 
less  men  in  a  battalion. 

There  are  two  forms  of  American  ma- 
chine-gun battalions.  One  has  550  men 
under  20  officers,  and  it  has  36  heavy 
machine  guns  and  12  spare  guns.  The 
other  form  of  battalion  has  728  men  under 
26  officers,  and  it  has  48  heavy  machine 
guns  and  16  spare  guns. 

A  brand  new  type  of  American  battalion 
is  the  trench-mortar  battalion,  which  has 
757  men  under  17  officers. 

Other  American  battalion  strengths  are : 
light  artillery,  579  men  under  17  officers ; 
heavy  field  artillery,  476  men  under  12  of- 
ficers ;  engineer  battalion,  753  men  under 
20  officers. 

Q. — What  is  an  adjutant-general? 

A. — An  officer  who  keeps  the  records, 
orders,  and  correspondence  of  the  Army. 
He  serves  under  the  direction  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  and  of  the  Chief  of  Staff. 
Through  him  and  over  his  name  instruc- 
tions and  regulations  of  the  War  De- 
partment are  sent  forward  to  military 
officers  and  troops.  He  is  at  once  a  sec- 
retary and  archivist  to  the  Secretary  of 
War,  and,  to  a  large  extent,  rules  the  legal 
questions  of  an  army. 

Q. — What  offenses  in  the  American 
army  incur  death  penalty? 

A. — Eleven  offenses  are  named  in  the 
regulations.  Of  these,  spying,  murder, 
and  rape,  and  sometimes  desertion  in  the 
face  of  the  enemy  are  punishable  by 
hanging.  The  others  are  punishable  by 
shooting,  but  the  method  is  left  to  the 
commanding  officers.  The  lesser  offenses 


Our  Army 


105 


so  punishable  are  cowardice,  in  any  one 
of  a  variety  of  ways ;  sleep  or  drunken- 
ness on  sentry  post;  desertion  or  the  in- 
citement to  or  assistance  in  desertion ; 
attack  upon  a  superior  officer  or  insub- 
ordination ;  mutiny  or  sedition ;  mak- 
ing known  the  countersign ;  aiding  the 
enemy  with  ammunition  "or  any  other 
thing,"  or  harboring  or  giving  intelligence 
to  the  enemy. 

In  the  offense  of  "neglect  of  sentry 
duty,"  which  is  a  betrayal  of  responsi- 
bility whose  seriousness  has  made  it  an 
almost  unforgivable  crime  against  mili- 
tary law,  the  letter  of  the  regulation 
recognizes  no  difference  between  being 
asleep  and  being  intoxicated. 

Q. — Is  it  any  excuse  for  a  sleeping 
sentry  to  plead  that  he  was 
worn  out? 

A. — The  regulations  say  distinctly  that 
"the  fact  that  the  accused  had  been  pre- 
viously overtaxed  by  excessive  guard 
duty  is  not  a  defense,  although  evidence 
to  that  effect  may  be  received  in  extenua- 
tion of  the  offense."  The  reason  for  this 
severity  is  that  the  sentry  who  neglects 
his  duty  may  have  jeopardized  all  his 
comrades  and  perhaps  the  fate  of  a  bat- 
tle or  even  a  campaign. 

Q. — What  is  done  to  a  private  who 
punches  an  officer? 

A. — He  may  be  punished  by  death.  He 
certainly  will  be  punished  with  great  se- 
verity. The  American  Army  regulation 
is: 

"Any  person  subject  to  military  Taw, 
who,  on  any  pretense  whatever,  strikes 
his  superior  officer  or  draws  or  lifts  up 
any  weapon  against  him,  being  in  the 
execution  of  his  office,  or  willfully  dis- 
obeys any  lawful  command  of  his  su- 
perior officers,  shall  suffer  death  or  such 
other  punishment  as  a  court-martial  may 
direct." 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  between 
a  brigade  and  a  regiment? 

A. — A  brigade  is  a  force  made  up  of 
a  number  of  regiments.  An  American  in- 
fantry brigade,  under  present  conditions, 
contains  two  infantry  regiments  and  has, 
in  addition,  a  machine-gun  battalion. 
Each  regiment  is  commanded  by  its  own 
officers,  the  commanding  officer  of  each 
being  a  colonel.  The  whole  is  com- 
manded by  a  general  of  brigade,  better 
known  as  brigadier-general. 

Brigades   in   old   days   often   were   as 


small  as  3,000  men,  but  with  the  modern 
increase  of  regimental  strength,  an  Amer- 
ican infantry  brigade,  at  full  war  strength, 
has  8,000  men  with  232  commissioned  of- 
ficers. 

There  are,  also,  brigades  of  field  ar- 
tillery and  of  cavalry.  A  field  artillery 
brigade  has  two  regiments  of  light  ar- 
tillery, one  regiment  of  heavy  artillery, 
and  a  trench-mortar  battery.  A  cavalry 
brigade  consists  of  three  regiments  of 
cavalry.  Artillery  and  cavalry  brigades 
have  about  5,000  men  each,  counting  of- 
ficers. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  a  battery? 
Does  it  mean  any  number  of 
cannon  or  only  a  few? 

A. — "Battery"  means  to  the  artillery 
what  "company"  means  to  the  infantry 
regiment — that  is,  it  is  the  smallest  unit 
of  the  organization,  which  is  commanded 
directly  by  commissioned  officers. 

An  American  battery  of  light  artillery 
has  four  3-inch  guns  and  193  men  under 
5  officers. 

The  American  battery  of  heavy  field 
artillery  has  four  6-inch  guns,  228  men, 
and  five  officers.  (Of  course,  there  is 
the  full  proportionate  number  of  non- 
commissioned officers,  such  as  sergeants, 
corporals,  etc.) 

When  two  batteries  of  heavy,  or  three 
batteries  of  light,  field  artillery  are  com- 
bined, the  organization  is  a  battalion, 
and  a  major  commands  it. 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  between 
commissioned  officers  and  non- 
commissioned ones? 

A. — Commissioned  officers  hold  their 
position  only  by  virtue  of  a  commission 
issued  to  them  under  authority  of  the 
President  as  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
Army  and  Navy.  In  the  old  establish- 
ment of  the  Army,  the  regular  Army  of- 
ficers were  mostly  from  West  Point, 
with  comparatively  few  officers  promoted 
from  the  ranks  or  appointed  from  civil- 
ian life. 

Non-commissioned  officers  are  always 
men  selected  from  the  privates,  and, 
despite  their  titles  (corporal  and  ser- 
geant), they  remain  distinctly  of  the 
status  of  privates,  in  so  far  as  their  rank 
compares  with  that  of  even  the  lowest 
commissioned  officer. 

They  are  appointed  by  the  command- 
ing officer  of  the  regiment,  usually  on 
recommendation  of  the  company  com- 
mander. They  may  be  degraded  to  the 
ranks  again,  for  cause. 


io6 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Do  commissioned  officers  in 
the  army  not  get  certain  extras 
beside  their  pay? 

A. — They  do.  There  are  standard  extra 
allowances  for  such  things  as  "quarters" 
(meaning  rental  for  living  quarters), 
"light"  (meaning  a  stated  allowance  per 
month  for  whatever  light  they  need  at 
night),  "forage"  (feed  for  cavalry 
horses),  etc.  The  schedule  of  these  extra 
allowances  is  fearfully  and  wonderfully 
intricate.  It  has  been  the  subject  of  in- 
numerable Congress  laws  and  war-depart- 
ment regulations,  and  old  army  officers, 
despite  all  their  experience,  find  it  a  de- 
cidedly difficult  task  to  figure  out  just 
how  the  allowances  obtain  in  given  cases. 

Roughly  speaking,  these  extras  increase 
the  pay  of  American  Army  officers  by 
about  $30  monthly  in  the  case  of  second 
lieutenants;  $46  for  first  lieutenants;  $59 
for  captains ;  $73  for  majors ;  $87  for 
lieutenant-colonels;  $110  for  colonels; 
$114  for  brigadier-generals;  $127  for 
major-generals.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  theory  is  that  these  allowances 
are  not  added  pay,  but  merely  allowances 
to  meet  actual  expenses. 

Q. — Is  an  officer  on  inactive  duty 
entitled  to  wear  his  uniform  ? 

A. — He  may  if  he  desires.  He  must 
when  on  active  duty.  In  the  days  of 
peace,  a  West  Point  man  considered  it 
very  much  against  etiquette  to  wear  his 
uniform  at  any  time  except  when  he  was 
on  actual  duty  within  army  limits.  So 
far  was  this  observance  carried  that  of- 
ficers assigned  to  duties  where  uniforms 
were  obligatory,  often  carried  them  in 
suitcases  and  donned  them  only  on  the 
spot  where  they  had  to  wear  them.  It 
was  a  very  rare  thing,  indeed,  to  _  see  an 
American  officer  on  the  streets  in  uni- 
form. 

Q. — What  is  a  private's  first  pro- 
motion? 

A. — Promotion  to  corporal.  These  are 
usually  chosen  from  the  first-class  pri- 
vates. Corporals  are  the  squad  leaders. 
They  are  appointed  by  the  commanding 
officer  of  the  regiment  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  commanding  officer  of 
the  company.  In  addition,  each  company 
may  have  one  lance  corporal,  a  tem- 
porary appointment  made  by  the  com- 
pany commander  for  the  purpose  of  test- 
ing the  ability  of  some  private  for  per- 
manent appointment.  If  the  lance  cor- 
poral does  not  make  a  good  showing,  he 
is  returned  to  the  ranks  when  the  com- 
mander sees  fit 


Q. — Is  a  sergeant  the  highest  non- 
commissioned officer? 

A. — Yes.  He  is  next  above  the  cor- 
poral in  rank.  There  are  usually  9  to  n 
sergeants  in  a  company.  Unless  a  ser- 
geant has  some  other  duty  assigned  to 
him,  he  is  normally  the  leader  of  a  pla- 
toon. There  are,  however,  masy  special 
duties  assigned  to  sergeants.  The  first 
sergeant  (in  Army  slang,  the  "top  ser- 
geant") keeps  certain  company  records, 
forms  the  company  in  ranks,  transmits  or- 
ders from  the  company  commander,  and 
performs  other  important  tasks.  The 
supply  sergeant  sees  to  bringing  up  sup- 
plies of  all  kinds  to  the  company.  The 
mess  sergeant  looks  after  food.  The 
stable  sergeant  is  responsible  for  the  care 
of  horses  and  mules.  The  color  sergeant 
carries  the  colors.  There  are  many  other 
grades  within  the  rank  of  sergeant. 

Q. — What  is  the  pay  of  American 
privates? 

Monthly  pay. 

Serving  Serving 

Rank.                               in  U.  S.  Abroad. 

Private    $30.00  $33  oo 

First-class  private  33-OO  36.60 

Corporal    36.00  40.20 

Sergeant  38.00  44.00 

First  sergeant 51.00  60.00 

Q. — Is  an  army  corps  a  whole  army 
by  itself? 

A. — It  is ;  but  a  still  bigger  army,  known 
as  the  field  army,  or  simply  as  "the 
army,"  may  be  made  of  two  or  many 
more  army  corps.  The  "armies"  holding 
the  European  fronts  consist  of  dozens  of 
army  corps. 

In  the  United  States  service  an  army 
corps  is  formed  by  combining  two  or 
more  divisions.  Such  a  corps  may  con- 
sist of  corps  headquarters,  6  complete  di- 
visions, and  special  corps  troops,  includ- 
ing I  pioneer  regiment  of  infantry,  2 
regiments  of  cavalry,  i  anti-aircraft  ma- 
chine-gun battalion,  I  anti-aircraft  artil- 
lery battalion,  I  trench  mortar  battalion, 
I  field  battalion,  signal  corps,  I  telegraph 
battalion,  i  aero  wing,  i  regiment  of  en- 
gineers, I  pontoon  train,  I  corps  artillery 
park,  i  remount  depot,  I  veterinary  hos- 
pital, I  bakery  company,  I  supply  train,  I 
troop  transport  train.  In  addition,  I  ar- 
tillery brigade,  I  sanitary  train,  and  I 
corps  engineer  park  may  be  formed  from 
detachments  from  the  divisional  organiza- 
tions. Its  approximate  strength  is  185,000 
officers  and  men. 


107 


Q. — How  big  is  an  American  army 
corps  in  France? 

A. — In  March,  1918,  it  was  decided  to 
make  an  army  corps  of  six  divisions  in 
order  to  conform  to  the  "three-line"  war- 
fare at  the  front — two  divisions  to  hold 
a  front  line,  two  divisions  behind  them 
for  re-enforcement  or  replacement,  and 
behind  them  again  another  two  divisions 
for  the  same  purpose. 

Q. — Is  a  staff  officer  the  member  of 
a  commanding  officer's  staff? 

A. — Any  officer  assigned  to  the  staff  of 
a  commander,  large  or  small,  is  known  as 
staff  officer.  But  the  "staff"  of  an  army 
is  far  more  important  and  diversified  than 
that.  The  "staff"  branches  of  the  army 
are  all  the  branches  that  are  not  in  the 
three  fighting  branches,  infantry,  artillery 
and  cavalry. 

There  are  nine  other  branches,  and 
these  are  the  staff.  They  are :  General 
staff  corps,  composed  of  specialists  and 
authorities  in  tactics  and  strategy;  adju- 
tant general's  department;  judge  advo- 
cate general's  department ;  engineer  corps ; 
signal  corps ;  medical  department ;  quar- 
termaster corps ;  ordnance  department. 
The  first  four  contain  only  officers.  The 
others  contain  officers  and  specially 
trained  enlisted  men. 

Q. — Is  an  army  general  as  big  a 
man  as  a  naval  admiral? 

A. — He  is,  in  the  American  service. 
The  two  ranks  compare  exactly  alike. 
We  have,  however,  had  very  few  soldiers 
of  the  rank  of  full  General.  In  fact,  we 
have  had  only  four  in  our  whole  history 
— Washington,  Grant,  Sherman  and  Sher- 
idan. The  way  the  other  ranks  compare 
is: 

Lieutenant-General   Vice-Admiral 

Major-General    Rear- Admiral 

Brigadier-General Commodore 

Colonel  Captain 

Lieutenant-Colonel    Commander 

Major  Lieutenant-Commander 

Captain  Lieutenant 

First  Lieutenant. Lieutenant,  junior  grade 
Second  Lieutenant  Ensign 

There  are  no  more  Commodores,  by  the 
way,  in  active  service.  It  is  a  title  used 
only  in  the  retired  list. 

Q. — Why  do  none  of  the  army  of- 
ficers we  see  wear  a  sword? 

A. — The  sword  has  gone  out  of  use  in 
field  service,  and  officers  now  wear 


swords  only  in  full-dress  parade  or  on 
full-dress  ceremonial  occasions.  In  the 
field,  officers  carry  a  revolver  or  an  auto- 
matic pistol  for  side-arm;  and  in  actual 
fighting  they  may  or  may  not  use  a 
rifle,  according  to  circumstances. 

Q. — How  can  a  young  man  get  into 
West  Point? 

A. — Up  to  1915  every  applicant  for 
admission  to  West  Point  had  to  stand 
physical  and  mental  examinations.  Since 
1915  a  candidate  may  be  admitted  with- 
out mental  examination  on  presentation 
of  a  certificate  showing  adequate  pre- 
paratory training. 

Each  Congressman  has  the  naming  of 
two,  under  the  last  law  providing  that 
two  are  to  be  appointed  from  each  con- 
gressional district,  two  from  each  Ter- 
ritory, four  from  each  State  at  large, 
and  80  from  the  United  States  at  large. 
The  President  is  authorized  to  appoint 
cadets  from  among  the  enlisted  men  of 
the  United  States  Army  and  the  National 
Guard,  the  total  number  so  selected  not 
to  exceed  1 80  at  any  one  time. 

Q. — Just  what  is  West  Point? 

A. — It  is  the  government  training 
school  for  the  officers  of  the  Regular 
Army.  The  United  States  Military 
Academy  at  West  Point  was  established 
by  act  of  Congress  in  1802.  In  1843 
Congress  provided  that  the  corps  of 
cadets  at  the  academy  should  consist  of 
one  from  each  congressional  district,  one 
from  each  Territory,  one  from  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  and  ten  from  the 
United  States  at  large,  all  to  be  appointed 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
Under  this  plan,  as  expanded  from  time 
to  time,  the  number  of  authorized  cadet- 
ships  in  1915  was  706,  but  in  that  year 
79  cadetships  were  unfilled.  The  act  of 
May  4,  1916,  authorizes  an  increase  of 
cadetships  to  1,332,  and  provides  that 
the  increase  shall  take  place  in  four  an- 
nual increments  as  nearly  equal  as  prac- 
ticable. 

Q. — What  officers  wear  spurs? 

A. — All  those  entitled  to  a  mount  wear 
spurs. 

Q. — What  is  a  soldier's  equipment? 

A. — Besides  his  extra  clothing  a  soldier 
carries  a  blanket,  a  rubber  poncho,  a  can- 
teen, a  mess  kit,  including  meat  can, 
knife,  fork,  and  spoon,  a  cup,  toilet  ar- 
ticles, a  first-aid  package,  and  some  minor 
belongings. 


io8 


Questions  and  Answers 


One  of  the  most  useful  pieces  is  one- 
half  of  a  shelter  tent,  with  rope  and 
pins.  The  shelter  tent  is  said  to  be  a 
French  invention  which  was  introduced 
into  the  American  Army  during  the 
Civil  War.  In  the  Army  it  is  often  called 
a  "dog  tent,"  because  of  its  shape  and 
small  size.  Two  men  can  combine  their 
halves  and  set  up  a  shelter  tent  in  a  few 
minutes.  While  it  cannot  be  described  as 
roomy,  it  is  just  what  its  name  implies,  a 
"shelter"  from  wind  and  rain.  It  is  used 
only  in  temporary  camps. 

Each  soldier  in  a  modern  army  car- 
ries with  him  sufficient  food,  clothing, 
shelter,  fighting  arms,  and  ammunition 
to  take  care  of  himself  for  a  short  period 
in  case  he  should  be  separated  from  his 
comrades. 

Q. — What  weight  must  an  Ameri- 
can infantryman  carry? 

A.— The  total  weight  of  his  load,  in 
addition  to  the  clothes  he  wears,  is  50  to 
70  pounds.  The  number  of  articles  is 
surprisingly  large.  They  are  so  devised, 
however,  that  by  ingenious  methods  of 
packing  and  adjusting  they  can  all  be 
carried  with  the  least  possible  effort. 
This  load  is  much  lighter  than  that  of  the 
Germans  and  the  French.  It  is  probably 
the  lightest  weight  equipment  in  any 
army. 

Q. — How  many  cartridges  does  a 
soldier  carry? 

A. — The  amount  of  ammunition  which 
an  American  infantryman  carries  into 
battle  is  usually  220  rounds.  In  an  ad- 
vanced firing  position,  where  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  bring  up  reserves  of  ammunition, 
it  is  necessary  to  shoot  with  care  cot  to 
waste  cartridges. 

Q. — Do  all  soldiers  carry  entrench- 
ing outfits? 

A. — All  infantrymen  do.  In  modern 
warfare  the  intrenching  tool  is  a  posi- 
tively vital  part  of  fighting  equipment. 
The  eight  men  in  each  squad  carry  8 
tools:  4  shovels,  2  pick  mattocks,  I  polo 
or  hand  ax,  and  I  wire  cutter.  In  ordi- 
nary soil  they  can  quickly  throw  up  a 
shallow  trench  which  will  protect  to  a 
great  extent  from  the  enemy's  fire.  After 
a  trench  has  once  been  started,  it  can  be 
deepened  and  extended,  even  in  the  face 
of  the  enemy,  without  the  soldier  expos- 
ing himself  to  direct  fire. 


Q. — What  is  the  soldier's  first  work 
in  the  morning? 

A. — The  soldier  must  get  up  about  6 
o'clock,  a  little  earlier  in  summer  and  a 
little  later  in  winter.  The  buglers  sound 
the  call  known  as  reveille.  The  men 
dress  and  fall  in. 

The  first  thing  is  military  drill  which 
consists  of  "setting-up  exercises,"  and 
occupies  the  first  few  minutes  of  the  day. 
They  consist  of  certain  exercises  of  the 
head,  arms,  trunk,  and  legs,  designed  not 
merely  to  develop  muscles  but  also  to  in- 
crease skill,  control  of  the  body,  and  self- 
reliance. 

Then  comes  "washing  up"  and  break- 
fast. Usually  breakfast  is  followed  by  a 
half -hour  for  cleaning  the  barracks  and 
bunks  and  putting  clothing  and  bedding 
in  order.  Frequently  the  company  com- 
mander will  inspect  the  barracks  imme- 
diately to  make  sure  that  every  man  has 
attended  to  his  part  of  the  work.  There 
is  then  often  some  time  which  the  soldier 
uses  for  attending  to  his  personal  needs, 
tidying  up  his  clothing,  and  the  like. 

The  remaining  two  or  three  hours  of 
the  morning  are  likely  to  be  spent  in 
drill,  at  first  in  "close  order"  and  later  in 
"extended  order"  also.  During  the  drill 
there  are  numerous  short  periods  of  rest. 
In  most  camps  guard  mounting  comes 
about  noon.  This  consists  of  relieving 
the  men  who  have  been  guarding  the 
camp  and  turning  over  this  duty  to  new 
men.  Each  soldier  mounts  guard  not 
oftener  than  once  a  week,  unless  he  is 
ordered  to  double  duty  as  punishment. 

Q. — Are  soldiers  in  camp  kept  busy 
all  day? 

A. — They  are,  in  training  camps  and  in 
garrison.  After  guard  mounting  the  men 
go  to  dinner,  which  comes  at  12  o'clock. 
At  least  one  hour  is  always  allowed  for 
dinner  and  rest. 

During  the  afternoons  the  work  Is 
varied  to  include  additional  setting-up 
exercises  and  other  drills,  target  prac- 
tice and  bayonet  exercises.  About  5 
o'clock  comes  the  evening  parade  and 
"retreat,"  when  the  flag  is  lowered  or 
furled  for  the  night.  The  band  plays 
"The  Star  Spangled  Banner,"  while  all 
officers  and  soldiers  stand  at  attention. 

Supper  comes  between  5  and  6  o'clock 
and  is  followed  by  a  period  of  rest.  Taps 
are  sounded  by  10  o'clock.  This  is  the 
signal  to  put  out  all  lights,  retire,  and 
keep  quiet. 


SERVICE  ARM  AND  RANK  IN  THE  ARMY. 


US 


U.S.R. 


Regular  Army  National  Army  Reserve  Corps 

The  above  letters,  plain  for  officers  and  enlisted  men,  dress'"aniform;  as  buttons 
for  enlisted  men,  service  uniform.,-  are  -worn  on  collar  of  coat,  or  on  the 
collar  of  the  shirt  if  the  coat  is  not  worn: 


The  arms  of  the  servjce  are  indicated  by  service  hat  cords  and  by  collar  insignia. 


HAT 


CORDS. 


OFFICERS Gold, 

ALL  OTHER  OFFICERS- -Gold  and  bracfc. 


ENLISTED  MEN 
Infantry. 
Cavalry. .Yellov* 

.ENLISTED  MEN 

Artillery  (F.  and  C.) Scarlet 

Medical  Department ^Maroon, 


ENLISTED  MEN 

Quartermaster  Corps Buff. 

Corps  of  Engineers Scarlet  and  white. 

ENLISTED  MEN 

Ocdnance  Department Black  and  scarlet. 

Signal  Corps. -JDxange  and  wh&e. 


COLLAR  INSIGNIA. 

Plain  ^for  dff leers,  and  enlisted  dreas  uniform.    Buttons  enlisted  service  uniform. 


Infantry 


FieliArtiflery 


Medical  Judge  Advocate 

Department      General's  Department 


Quartermaster  General's      Ordnance 
Department  Department 


Cavalry 

~ 


Coast  Artillery 


Adjutant  General's 
Department 


Inspector  General'* 
Department 


Corps  of  Engineers 


Signal  Corps 


COMMISSIONED  OFFICERS  —INSIGNIA  ON  SHOULDER 


General  Lieutenant  General  Major  General 

Coal  of  annt  of  the  United  One  large  silver  star  and         y, 
States. and  two  silver  star*,     trwro  small  nilrct  stacs. 


Colonel  Lieutenant  Colonel 

Silver  spread  eagle.  A  ellvtu  lea& 


Major 
A  gold  leaf. 


Brigadier  General 
One  silver  star. 


Captain 
Two  silver  bar*. 


First  Lieutenant  Second  Lieutenant) 

One  silver  bar.  3io  loop  Insignia. 


Chaplain 
Latin  cross. 


CHEVRONS  AND  SPECIALTY  MARKS 

The  more  frequent  Chevron-s,  only  are  given. 
The  colors  ol  the  hat  cords  are  used  in  the  chevrons. 


First  Sergoani 


Sergeant 


Oorooral 


Private,  1st  Class. 
Insignia  of  colon 
of  arm  ojf  service* 


Chief  Gnimar  Ktectriolam  lleobanio          Bandsman 

Mechanic 


Cook 


.Commandar     Co*rt  Artillery 


Artillery 


Wagoner 


Butler 


Fireman 


UNITED    STATES    NAVY 


Marines 


CAP  DEVICES 

Navy  Navy 

Commissioned  Officer  Warrajit  Officer 


Navy 
Chief  Petty  Officer 


Navy 


ENLISTED  HEN 
Naval  Militia 


Naval  Reserve 


On  ribbon 
U4.S,  AHD  1UME  OF  VESSEL 


On  ribbon 

NAVAL  MILITIA 


On  ribbon. 

-ViViL  RESERVE  FOBCB 


SERVICE  COAT  COLLAR  DEVICES— NAVY 

'(Also  used  on  shoulder  devices  for  ranks  through  Commodore.' 
(Marines  show  rank  on  shoulder  Joop  as  in  Army. ; 


EISE  OFFICERS 


Admiral  of  the  Navy 


Admiral 


Vice  Admiral 


Rear  Admiral 


Commodore 


Captaia 


Commander 


Lieutenant  Commander 


Lieutenant 


Lieutenant  Junior  Cicada'         Ensign, 


STAFF  OFFICERS 

game  as  equal  rank  of  line  officers,  but  corps  de-vices  spp-eaT  tn  plat*  of  anchors 

CORES  DEVICES 


Medical 


Pay 


Prof.Jdath. 


Naval  Civil  Dental 

Constructor          Engineer  Officer 

CHIEF  WARRANT  OFFICERS',  WARRANT  OFFICERS.  .MATES 


OUaplalu 


Ch.BoatswainCh.Gunner  Cb. Machinist  CKCarpentei  Ch.SaninakerCh.Phawaaiflat       CHie*  Midship-.. 

Boatswain        Gunner         M-ichiuist        Carpenter         Sailmaker      *******f£!££Z£ QHlF* 


OFFICERS'  SHOULDER  MARKS 

(Worn  with  White  Summer  Service  Uniform) 


Admiral 


Vlco 
Admiral 


LieuUmanl 


Lieutenant 
Junior  Grade 


Rear 
Admiral 


Captain. 


Commander 


Ensign 


Chaplain. 


Chief 
Boatswain 


Chief 
Gunner 


Gunner 


Boatswain         Carpenter 


Warrant 

.Mac  hi  iris* 


Mute. 


Lieutenant 

Commander 


Chief 
Machinist 


I'uy 
Clerk 


SLEEVE  MARKS  OF  COMMISSIONED  AND  WARRANT  OFFICERS NAVY. 

Staff  officers  same  stripes,  but  instead  of  stars,  corps  colors  are  used  with  stripes. 

Corps  colors*    Medical,  maroon;  Pay,  white;  Prof.  Math.,  olive  green;  Civil  Bug.,  blue; 

Mod.  Res.,  crimson*  Dental,  orange. 

LINE  OFFICERS. 
(Also  used  on  shoulder  devices  f oj-  tanks  below  Commodore ) 


Lieutenant 
Junior 


Ensign. 


RATINGS  AND  A  FEW  SPECIALTY  MARKS — NAVY 


Chief  Petty  Petty  Officer 

Officer  1st  Class 


Quartermaster  *£*«% 


Gunner's  Mate 


Storekeeper 


Petty  Officer 
2nd  Class 


Yeoman 


Petty  Officen 
3rd  Class 


Printes 


Boatswain's  Mate 
Coxswain 


Carpenter's  Mate 

Plumber 
Eitter.  Palater 


'Electrician         Machinist's  Mate     Hospital  Corps 


E 


?FH 


>S 


< 

* 

<K 


Q. — How  are  our  soldiers  identi- 
fied? 

A. — A  "Statistical  Division"  with  a  for- 
eign branch  in  Paris  takes  care  of  this. 
Every  man  in  the  Army,  whether  officer 
or  private,  is  indexed  by  name,  and  the 
records  filed  in  alphabetical  order  for  im- 
mediate reference,  should  the  names  ap- 
pear either  in  Army  orders  or  casualty 
lists.  With  the  description  of  each  sol- 
dier is  given  the  name  of  his  next  of  kin 
with  emergency  address. 

Each  soldier  wears  about  his  neck  and 
underneath  his  clothing  a  small  tag  giv- 
ing his  name  and  company.  The  foreign 
branch  of  the  Statistical  Division  has  the 
fighting  forces  listed  by  regiments,  as 
well  as  alphabetically.  Whenever  the 
names  of  soldiers  figure  in  official 
dispatches,  duplicate  sets  of  records  kept 
at  Washington  will  afford  quick  refer- 


Q. — How   are    our   sailors    identi- 
fied? 

A. — Every  officer  and  enlisted  man  in 
the  United  States  Navy  wears  a  metal 
identification  tag  which  bears  the  wear- 
er's name,  the  date  of  his  birth  and  en- 
listment, and,  in  the  case  of  an  officer, 
his  rank  and  date  of  appointment.  On 
the  other  side  is  etched  the  finger  print 
of  his  right  index  finger.  This  is  a  part 
of  what  naval  officers  regard  as  the  best 
system  of  identification  known,  superior 
to  that  in  use  in  European  armies  and 
navies. 

Q. — What  is  the  identification  tag? 

A. — The  identification  tag  consists  of 
an  oval  plate  of  monel  metal  1.25  by  1.50 
inches,  perforated  at  one  end  and  suspend- 
ed from  the  neck  by  a  monel  wire  encased 
in  a  cotton  sleeve.  A  copy  of  each  finger 
print  on  paper  is  supplied  to  the  Bureau 
of  Navigation,  Navy  Department,  where 
it  is  filed  in  the  identification  section,  this 
particular  work  being  in  charge  of  j.  H. 
Taylor,  finger-print  expert,  who  devised 
the  tag  adopted. 

Q. — What  is  monel  metal? 

A. — Monel  is  the  alloy  used  for  battle- 
ship propellers.  It  was  chosen  in  prefer- 
ence to  brass  or  any  other  metal  because 
it  is  unaffected  by  heat,  not  melting  until 
it  has  reached  a  temperature  of  2,480  de- 


grees Fahrenheit.  It  will  not  corrode,  and 
is  not  affected  by  salt  water.  On  each 
ship  and  at  each  naval  station  a  hospital- 
corps  officer  has  charge  of  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  tags. 

Q. — How  are  finger-prints  taken? 

A. — The  finger-print  is  taken  in  ink 
on  the  metal.  The  name  and  dates  are 
then  written  on  the  tag,  which  is  sprinkled 
with  powdered  asphaltum  and  held  over 
an  alcohol  lamp  until  the  asphaltum  melts 
into  the  ink.  The  tag  is  then  placed  for 
an  hour  in  a  nitric-acid  bath,  which  etches 
the  finger-print  and  inscription  on  the 
metal. 

Q. — What  is  the   chance   of  mis- 
takes ? 

A. — There  is  not  one  chance  in  65,000,- 
ooo,  the  finger-print  experts  estimate,  of 
a  mistake  in  identification,  as  there  are 
65  characteristics  in  each  finger  and  only 
one  chance  in  1,000,000  of  the  fingers  of 
any  two  persons  having  the  same  char- 
acteristics. 

Q. — Are  our  soldiers  not  numbered, 
also? 

A. — The  War  Department  has  decided 
to  assign  a  number  to  each  enlisted  man 
in  the  armies  of  the  U.  S.  These  num- 
bers (beginning  at  No.  l  and  continuing 
without  limit  and  without  alphabetical  pre- 
fix or  affix)  will  be  stamped  on  the  metal 
identification  tags  now  worn  by  the  sol- 
diers. 

Q. — How  does  France  tag  her  sol- 
diers? 

A. — France  uses  a  German-silver  iden- 
tification tag  for  each  soldier.  It  was 
intended  to  be  worn  on  a  string  about  the 
neck  and  hidden  under  the  shirt,  but  the 
majority  of  "poilus"  prefer  to  wear  the 
tag  on  a  chain  about  the  wrist.  In  1915 
it  was  decided  to  provide  two  tags,  so 
that  for  identification  purpose,  one  was 
to  be  removed  by  the  authorities  and  the 
other  was  to  remain  on  the  body  for  fu- 
ture identification. 

Q. — Are  the  British  tagged? 

A. — The  British  Tommy,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  war,  wore  a  circular  aluminum 
tag  hanging  on  a  string  about  his  neck. 


114 


Identification  of  Fighting  Men 


containing  his  draft  number,  initials, 
name,  regiment  and  religion.  Owing  to 
the  scarcity  of  aluminum,  it  was  decided 
in  November,  1916,  to  adopt  a  new  sys- 
tem. It  consists  of  two  tags,  one  octag- 
onal and  red,  the  other  round  and  green, 
and  suspended  from  the  first.  In  case 
of  death,  the  green  tag  is  removed  and 
the  red  one  left  for  future  identification. 
The  Belgians,  in  1915,  adopted  the 
French  model,  fastened  to  the  wrist  by 
a  chain  bracelet. 

Q. — What  is  the  Italian  system? 

A. — The  Italian  identification  tag 
(adopted  in  1915)  cpnsists  of  an  ornate 
book-like  locket,  containing  a  folded 
paper  record  suspended  on  a  string  around 
the  neck.  This  record  gives  the  wearer's 
full  name,  military  class,  recruiting  dis- 
trict, names  of  parents,  residence  of  im- 
mediate family,  regiment,  vaccination  rec- 
ords and  wounds. 

The  Serbian  soldier,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  war,  used  an  identification  tag 
which  was  simply  a  metal  plate  sewed  on 
the  inside  of  his  tunic.  This  method  has 
now  been  replaced  by  the  French  identi- 
fication tag. 

Q. — Were  Russian  soldiers  tagged? 

A. — With  the  exception  of  those  Rus- 
sians who  fought  in  France,  no  identifi- 
cation tags  were  provided  for  the  Rus- 
sian soldiers.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of 
fallen  Russians,  therefore,  never  have 
been  identified,  and  untold  misery  and 
countless  legal  tangles  have  ensued  be- 
cause Russia  failed  to  provide  these  in- 
expensive tags. 

Q. — When  did  Germany  first  tag 
soldiers  ? 

A. — In  1870,  in  the  Franco-Prussian 
War.  Germany  entered  the  present  war 
with  the  same  tag  that  it  had  used  then. 
This  tag  contained  the  numbers  of  the 
army  corps,  the  regiment,  the  company 
and  the  draft.  It  was  worn  on  a  string 
around  the  neck.  Sometimes  a  leather 
pouch  protected  it. 


Q. — Do  the  Germans  still  use  the 
same  tag? 

A. — No.  In  June,  1915,  a  more  com- 
plete tag  of  larger  dimensions  and  oval 
in  shape  was  adopted.  It  carried  the 
names,  residence,  dates  of  birth,  mobili- 
zation data,  and  a  number  of  numerals 
and  letters. 

In  November,  1916,  still  another  model 
was  adopted  by  the  German  Army.  It 
was  even  larger  than  the  preceding  one, 
and  made  in  a  split  form.  The  two 
halves,  one  the  duplicate  of  the  other, 
are  separated  by  a  serrated  line,  which 
makes  it  easy  to  detach  one  half  of  the 
identification  tag,  while  the  other  half 
remains  on  the  body  of  the  fallen  sol- 
dier. 

The  Turks  use  a  round  tag  of  metal 
carrying  the  name,  first  name,  and  regi- 
mental number  of  the  soldier,  while  the 
Austrians  use  a  locket  similar  to  that^of 
the  Italians.  This  is  worn  on  a  string 
which  the  soldier  wears  around  his  neck. 


Q. — How  are  the  Chinese  soldiers 
drafted  and  tagged? 

A. — They  are  first  put  through  a  thor- 
ough physical  examination  by  the  Brit- 
ish or  French  surgeon — an  event  in  the 
Chinaman's  life,  who,  probably,  has  never 
seen  a  European  physician  before. 

As  all  Chinese  look  alike  to  the  Euro- 
pean officers  who  are  to  control  him  later, 
they  simply  must  have  a  ready  and  sure 
means  of  identification.  A  steel  brace- 
let with  his  number  engraved  upon  it 
is  marked  with  other  data  about  the  sol- 
dier ^  in  the  official  records.  This  brace- 
let is  riveted  about  the  owner's  wrist, 
and  none  other  than  a  blacksmith  can  re- 
move it. 

His  queue  is  next  shaved  off  by  a  bar- 
ber (for  the  sum  of  eight  cents),  and  the 
celestial  is  treated  to  the  surprise  of  his 
life.  He  gets  a  bath,  and  a  brand-new 
suit  of  soldier  clothes.  He  is  ready  then 
to  go  aboard  the  transport  with  all  his 
belongings  in  a  huge  bundle  on  his  back. 


THE  PRISONER  OF  WAR 


Q. — Did  the  Germans  intern  Brit- 
ish civilian  subjects  before  the 
British  interned  Germans? 

A. — They  interned  them  afterward. 
November  8,  1914,  Ambassador  Gerard 
wrote  from  Berlin  to  Ambassador  Page 
in  London,  saying  that  German  opinion 
had  been  inflamed  by  the  British  pro- 
cedure of  wholesale  internment.  Mr.  Ge- 
rard wrote:  "The  (German)  order  for 
the  general  internment  of  British  males 
between  17  and  55,  which  went  into  ef- 
fect on  the  6th  inst.,  was  occasioned  by 
the  pressure  of  public  opinion.  Up  to  the 
6th,  considerable  liberty  of  movement  had 
been  allowed  to  British  subjects  in  Ger- 
many, and  many  petitions  were  received 
from  them  setting  forth  the  favorable 
conditions  under  which  they  were  allowed 
to  live  and  to  carry  on  their  business,  and 
urging  the  similar  treatment  of  German 
subjects  in  England." 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  put  British, 
Russian  and  French  prisoners 
in  separate  camps  ? 

A. — No.  The  American  Embassy  fre- 
quently handed  the  German  Government 
the  British  protests  against  putting  all  the" 
nationalities  and  races  together,  but  the 
Germans  responded  that  they  were  all 
Allies  and,  therefore,  had  no  right  to  de- 
mand separation. 

The  American  inspectors  held  that  this 
was  unjust,  and  subjected  the  Englishmen 
to  unnecessary  discomfort  and  humilia- 
tion, but  there  was  no  change. 

Q. — Why  has  Germany  refused  to 
exchange  prisoners? 

A. — Apparently  for  purely  economical 
and  strategical  reasons.  In  the  first  place, 
the  Germans  calculated  that  the  compara- 
tively few  Germans  who  were  in  British 
and  French  hands  would  not  be  a  very 
important  asset  to  the  big  German  armies, 
but  that  the  same  number  of  British  and 
French  would  be  a  very  valuable  asset, 
indeed,  to  those  armies,  which  needed  men 
badly  in  the  earlier  years  of  the  war. 

In  the  second  place,  they  knew  that  the 
British  labor  unions  opposed  the  use  of 
German  prisoners  of  war  in  industrial 
labor,  whereas  in  Germany  there  was  no 
such  obstacle  to  utilizing  the  labor  of 
prisoners  of  war,  thus  giving  a  clear 
economic  advantage  to  Germany. 


In  the  third  place,  British  and,  in  part, 
French  prisoners  of  war  got  a  great  deal 
of  food  from  those  countries.  If  these 
men  were  exchanged,  the  returned  Ger- 
mans would  have  to  be  fed  at  home,  and 
thus  would  make  that  much  more  drain  on 
an  already  limited  food-supply. 

Q. — Is  a  prisoner  of  war  a  convict? 

A. — His  status  is  absolutely  and  specific- 
ally different  from  that  of  a  convict.  A 
soldier  who  is  captured  in  honorable  war- 
fare is  entitled  to  treatment  that  entails 
neither  stigma  nor  avoidable  hardship. 

Theoretically,  the  captor  has  the  right 
only  to  imprison  him  and  hold  him  safe 
so  that  he  shall  not  become  a  menace.  In 
practice,  however,  the  belligerents  erect 
so  many  safeguards  and  regulations  that 
the  quality  of  treatment  ranges  widely, 
according  to  the  character  of  those  in 
command  of  the  various  camps. 

A  prisoner  of  war,  for  instance,  re- 
mains a  man  who  must  submit  to  all  mili- 
tary regulations,  and  who  is  as  subject  to 
discipline  and  military  law  as  if  he  were 
in  his  own  army.  A  stern  commander 
who  is  severe  with  his  own  men  naturally 
would  be  a  pretty  harsh  commander  of  a 
prisoner  camp. 

Q. — Were  outsiders  ever  allowed 
to  visit  German  war-prisoner 
camps  ? 

A. — The  American  Embassy  made  regu- 
lar and  stated  inspections  of  all  the  camps 
in  Germany,  under  arrangement  with  the 
German  Government.  In  this  duty  the 
Americans  did  not  represent  the  United 
States.  They  represented  Great  Britain, 
whose  interests  the  Americans  had  taken 
over  when  war  began.  Everything  was 
inspected,  the  men  were  questioned,  and 
full  detailed  reports  were  made  out. 

Q. — Were  the  prison  camps  in 
Germany  as  bad  as  the  British 
alleged? 

A. — Some  of  the  German  camps,  as  is 
proved  by  the  very  exact  and  carefully 
considered  report  of  Professor  Daniel  J. 
McCarthy,  who  conducted  the  work  of 
inspection  for  the  American  Embassy. 
were  frightfully  bad — not  merely  bad 
from  a  sanitary  and  physical  point  of 
view,  but  equally  bad  because  of  the  bru- 


116 


The  Prisoner  of  War 


117 


tality  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  in  charge. 
Others  were  excellent. 

Thus,  such  camps  as  Friedrichsfeld,  Sol- 
tau,  Parchim,  Dulmen,  Wahn,  Wunsdorf, 
and  many  others,  were  praised  by  him  as 
very  good  indeed.  The  camps  of  Minden, 
Limburg,  Wittenberg,  Schneidemuhl,  Lan- 
gensalzen,  etc.,  were  very  bad — "the  dif- 
ference between  heaven,  relatively,  and 
hell,  absolutely,"  as  Dr.  McCarthy  put  it. 

He  added  that  it  was  difficult  to  esti- 
mate the  exact  proportions  of  good  and 
bad  camps,  and  that  "one  might  say  that 
taking  the  problem  as  a  whole,  and  for  the 
majority  of  the  camps,  it  was  fairly  well 
administered."  This  judgment,  however, 
had  to  be  qualified  because  of  the  many 
less  satisfactory  aspects  presented  by  the 
huge  problem  of  the  many  thousand  scat- 
tered working  camps. 

Q. — What  were  the  differences  be- 
tween the  various  camps? 

A. — In  the  best  type  of  concentration, 
or  "parent"  camp,  the  prisoners  were  or- 
ganized on  a  military  basis  under  their 
own  noncommissioned  officers,  who  were 
responsible  for  discipline,  behavior,  and 
clothing  and,  in  some  cases,  were  in  charge 
of  the  kitchen  as  well.  In  the  majority 
of  camps,  however,  such  a  complete  or- 
ganization was  not  permitted ;  in  many 
camps  a  partial  organization  was  made, 
with  some  authority  for  the  noncommis- 
sioned officers ;  in  others  the  prisoners 
were  treated  simply  as  criminals,  without 
any  rights,  and  were  guarded  at  the  point 
of  the  bayonet  by  men  who  were  allowed 
to  use  almost  any  degree  of  brutality  in 
enforcing  their  commands. 

Q. — To  what  was  the  difference  in 
camps  due? 

A. — The  fact  that  the  army  corps  com- 
mander was  practically  supreme,  and  that 
he  handed  over  the  complete  charge  of 
the  prison  camp  to  the  camp  commandant, 
who  was  often  of  the  same  rank  as  him- 
self, gave  opportunity  for  very  good  treat- 
ment, as  it  gave  freedom  for  very  bad, 
of  prisoners  of  war.  Dr.  McCarthy 
quotes  the  saying  that  was  general 
throughout  Germany,  "Everything  depends 
on  the  commandant."  To  a  great  extent, 
he  says,  that  was  literally  true. 

Q. — What  was  Dr.  McCarthy's 
general  verdict  on  the  German 
prison  camps? 

A. — There  were  so  many  various  as- 
pects that  he  could  not  make  a  summing- 
up  that  would  be  comprehensive.  He 


says  that  he  found  prisons  appallingly 
bad,  and  he  found  prisons  really  good ; 
commandants  and  guards  who  were  brutal, 
and  others  who  were  considerate,  kind, 
and  intelligent.  Some  working  camps 
were  bad,  some  satisfactory. 

As  an  outstanding  example  of  a  bad 
camp,  Dr.  McCarthy  describes  that  at 
Minden,  which  was  one  of  the  worst  in 
Germany,  and  whose  conditions  he  found 
not  only  bad  but  "inexcusable." 

One  of  the  best  of  the  "parent"  camps 
was  that  at  Friedrichsfeld,  which  had 
been  remodeled,  Dr.  McCarthy  explains, 
"so  as  to  make  it  very  comfortable.  There 
was  a  splendid  organization  of  the  camp 
and  every  effort  was  being  made  to  make 
the  men  comfortable,  guard  their  health, 
give  them  mental  and  physical  relaxation, 
and  to  refit  them  for  more  useful  work 
in  the  future." 

Q. — How  large  were  the  German 
prison  camps? 

A. — Most  camps  were  built  to  hold 
from  ten  to  twelve  thousand  men,  but 
some  were  much  larger.  The  big  camp 
at  Parchim  held  forty  thousand  men  in 
1916. 

Q. — Did  a  big  force  guard  the  big 
number  of  prisoners? 

A. — The  German  practice  was  to  have 
a  guard  about  one-tenth  in  strength  of 
the  number  of  prisoners.  This  guard  con- 
sisted usually  of  men  who  had  been  in 
the  army,  but  were  too  old  for  active 
service,  or  else  of  young  men  physically 
unfit  for  service  in  the  field. 

Barbed  wire  divided  most  of  the  camps 
into  blocks  of  buildings,  and  thus  pre- 
vented any  concerted  action  by  the  whole 
fiumber  of  prisoners,  even  if  there  had 
not  been  constant  watchfulness.  In  ad- 
dition, every  prison  camp  was  over- 
looked by  many  towers  with  platforms 
armed  with  medium-caliber  cannon.  Thus 
the  prisoners  were  quite  helpless. 

Q. — How  many  prison  camps  are 
there  in  Germany? 

A.^- About  150,  counting  in  big  and  lit- 
tle. There  were  105  big  camps  for  pris- 
oners of  war  alone  in  1916.  In  addition 
to  these,  which  contained  the  enlisted  men 
and  noncommissioned  officers,  there  were 
many  smaller  camps  for  officers.  Then 
there  were  three  great  camps  for  interned 
civilians,  and  there  was  at  least  one  camp 
for  reserve  officers.  These  were  only  the 
actual  prison  or  concentration  camps. 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Were  these  prison  camps  the 
only  ones  in  Germany? 

A. — No.  Those  were  only  the  concen- 
tration or  parent  camps.  As  the  prison- 
ers of  war  were  assigned  to  labor,  they 
went  to  so-called  working  camps — camps 
attached  to  mines,  factories,  reclamation 
projects,  etc.  In  one  district  alone  there 
were  18,000  of  these  working  camps  at 
the  period  when  the  American  Embassy 
made  regular  inspections. 

Q. — Did  prisoners  work  with 
enough  willingness  to  make  it 
worth  while? 

A. — The  tedium  of  prison  life  made 
men  want  to  work.  In  addition,  most  of 
them  were  employed  in  agricultural  labor, 
and  the  prisoners  soon  discovered  that 
the  rural  population  was  inclined  to  treat 
them  well. 

As  Professor  McCarthy  reported  :  "The 
distinction  between  the  German  people  and 
the  German  Government  was  here  very 
manifest.  The  prisoner  of  war,  working 
in  the  fields  with  his  employer,  eating  at 
the  same  table  and  often  housed  in  the 
same  house,  lost  the  character  of  a  hated 
enemy — the  British  and  French  prisoners 
were,  as  a  rule,  popular  with  their  farmer 
employers  and  their  families  and,  when 
well  treated,  made  excellent  workmen. 
The  prisoner  rarely  attempted  to  escape, 
and  rarely  requested  to  be  returned  to  the 
parent  camp." 

Speaking  of  1916,  Dr.  McCarthy  said 
that  the  efficiency  of  war-prisoners  in  agri- 
cultural work  reached  certainly  80  per 
cent.  It  was  less  in  industry,  but,  in  a 
general  way,  the  efficiency  throughout  ap- 
peared to  range  between  50  and  75  per 
cent. 

Q. — Who  keeps  prison  camps 
clean?  The  captor  Govern- 
ment? 

A. — No.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  prisoners 
of  war  to  keep  their  camps  clean  as  the 
daily  routine  of  their  duty.  Regulations 
prescribe  what  they  shall  do  and  how  they 
shall  do  it,  just  as  if  they  were  in  their 
own  army.  They  must  also  do  any  other 
work  around  the  camp,  such  as  road-mak- 
ing, erecting  fences  and  barbed-wire  lines, 
etc. 

Q. — How  are  prisoners  punished 
in  a  prison  camp? 

A. — Prisoners  of  war  who  disobey  or- 
ders or  commit  offenses  lay  themselves 
liable  to  trial,  and  they  may  be  punished 


according  to  the  regulations  and  laws  of 
the  country  that  holds  them.  Such  pun- 
ishment in  serious  cases  such  as  mutiny, 
assaulting  guards  or  assaulting  fellow- 
prisoners,  may  go  even  so  far  as  death. 
Other  serious  offenses  may  be  punished 
by  terms  of  imprisonment.  The  offender 
then  ceases  to  be  a  prisoner  of  war,  and 
becomes  a  convict. 

Q. — Can  war-prisoners  be  .legally 
compelled  to  work? 

A. — Yes.  The  Hague  Convention  of 
1809  (signed  by  Great  Britain  and  Ger- 
many) says :  "The  State  may  utilize  the 
labor  of  prisoners  of  war  according  to 
their  rank  and  aptitude.  These  tasks  shall 
not  be  excessive,  and  shall  have  nothing 
to  do  with  military  operations." 

Prisoners  may  be  authorized  to  work 
for  the  public  service,  for  private  persons, 
or  on  their  own  account. 

Work  done  for  the  State  must  be  paid 
according  to  the  tariffs  in  force  for  sol- 
diers of  the  national  army  employed  in 
similar  tasks. 

When  the  work  is  for  other  branches 
of  the  public  service  or  for  private  per- 
sons, the  conditions  must  be  settled  in 
agreement  with  the  military  authorities. 

The  wages  of  the  prisoners  shall  po 
towards  improving  their  position,  and  the 
balance  shall  be  paid  them  at  the  time  of 
their  release,  after  deducting  the  cost  of 
their  maintenance. 

Q. — What  happens  to  a  prisoner 
who  refuses  to  work? 

A. — Article  8  of  the  Hague  Convention 
says  : 

"Prisoners  of  war  shall  be  subject  to  the 
laws  in  the  army  of  the  State  into  whose 
hands  they  have  fallen.  Any  act  of  in- 
subordination warrants  the  adoption,  as 
regards  them,  of  such  measures  of  se- 
verity as  may  be  necessary." 

Q. — Can  they  be  set  to  forced  la- 
bor? 

A. — Yes.  They  may  be  set  to  forced 
labor,  the  only  big  condition  being  that 
they  must  not  be  set  to  work  directly  at 
military  labor  such  as  munition-making, 
etc. 

Q.— Did  the   Germans   force  pris- 
oners to  work  on  munitions? 

A. — The  American  Embassy  inspectors 
found  that  there  was  little  of  this.  There 
was,  however,  much  contention  between 
prisoners  and  the  authorities  as  to  what 
was  military  labor,  in  the  sense  of  the 
Hague  Conventions. 


The  Prisoner  of  War 


119 


Q. — Where  did  Serbia  put  her  60,- 
ooo  Austrian  prisoners? 

A. — It  was  reported  when  von  Macken- 
sen  began  his  drive  from  Belgrade  that 
all  the  Austrian  prisoners  had  been  re- 
moved to  Corsica,  but,  in  view  of  the 
immense  difficulty  the  Serbians  them- 
selves experienced  in  getting  across  the 
Albanian  Mountains,  it  is  pretty  safe  to 
assume  that  they  took  few,  if  any,  prison- 
ers away  with  them.  As  these  Austrians, 
practically  unguarded,  were  scattered  all 
over  Serbia,  it  is  probable  that  most  of 
them  rejoined  the  Austrian  Army  after 
the  invasion. 

Q. — Are    German   prisoners   being 
used  as  laborers  in  England? 

A. — According  to  the  latest  statements 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  there  are  84,- 
ooo  German  prisoners  in  British  hands. 
A  good  number  of  these  are  used  in  road- 
making  and  quarrying.  Recently  the 
Bucklow  Union  Committee  of  the  Ches- 
shire  War  Agricultural  Committee  applied 
for  prisoners  of  war  for  service  on  the 
land.  Experienced  men  were  to  be  paid 
£i  ($5)  a  week,  men  without  experience 
I5s.  ($375).  Others  are  employed  in 
making  mail  bags,  being  paid  6d  (12  cents) 
a  bag. 

Some  of  the  civilian  prisoners,  also,  are 
engaged  in  making  mail  bags,  others  are 
employed  in  quarrying,  and  it  is  planned 
to  employ  them  in  clearing  forest  areas 
in  the  near  future. 

Q. — Did  the  German  prisoners  re- 
fuse to  work? 

A. — It  was  announced  in  the  House  of 
Commons  that  German  prisoners  of  war 
had  refused  to  continue  quarry  work  un- 
less they  received  increased  pay  and  ra- 
tions. It  was  further  stated,  however, 
that  disciplinary  action  having  been  taken, 
the  prisoners  resumed  work. 

In  the  annual  reports  of  several  of  the 
larger  coal  and  iron  companies  reference 
is  made  to  the  fact  that  German  prison- 
ers are  being  used.  In  one  of  these, 
with  headquarters  at  Middlesborough,  be- 
tween three  hundred  and  four  hundred 
German  prisoners  are  utilized,  and  the 
Chairman  of  Directors  stated :  "Our  man- 
agement are  thoroughly  satisfied  with  the 
experiment,  and  the  men  themselves  seem, 
on  the  whole,  to  prefer  regular  employ- 
ment with  the  allowance  they  can  earn 
rather  than  the  enforced  idleness  of  a 
prisoners'  camp.  During  the  past  month, 
however,  at  one  of  our  quarries,  they 
struck  work,  but  steps  being  promptly 


taken  to  reduce  the  rations  seem  to  have 
brought  them  to  their  senses,  and  I  under- 
stand most  are  back  at  work  again." 

Q. — What  British  representatives 
attended  the  Anglo-German 
Hague  Conference  on  prison- 
ers of  war? 

A. — Six  delegates  from  Great  Britain 
with  Sir  Robert  Younger  for  chairman 
and  Lord  Newton  as  next  in  rank.  One 
of  the  remaining  four  was  Mrs.  Darley 
Livingstone,  the  first  woman  to  sit  in  a 
diplomatic  negotiation  between  nations. 
She  is  an  American,  married  to  a  British 
officer,  and  has  been  member  and  honor- 
ary secretary  of  the  Government  Commit- 
tee (English)  on  the  Treatment  of  British 
Prisoners  by  the  Enemy.  She  is  said 
to  have  more  information  and  knowledge 
on  the  subject  of  British  prisoners  of  war 
in  all  its  details  than  any  other  person 
in  the  empire. 

Q. — How  many  civilians  were  in- 
terned? 

A. — There  were  at  the  end  of  May,  1917, 
3,600  British  civilians  interned  in  German 
prison  camps,  and  32,274  German  civilians 
interned  in  British  camps. 

Q. — How  many  prisoners  of  war 
are  there  in  Germany? 

A. — August  I,  1916,  the  German  Gov- 
ernment gave  out  the  following  official 
figures : 

Officers.  Men. 

French   5,047  348,731 

Russian 9,019  1,202,871 

Belgian    656  41,751 

British    947  29,956 

Serbian    22,914 

This  made  a  total  of  1,646,223,  ex- 
clusive of  the  15,669  officers,  up  to  that 
time,  and  it  appears  to  have  been  con- 
sidered ^  correct  by  the  American  rep- 
resentatives who  visited  the  war-prisons 
for  the  British  Government. 

Q. — How  many  prisoners  have  the 
Germans  taken  since? 

A. — Lord  Newton,  Minister  in  charge 
of  prisoners  in  Great  Britain,  stated  on 
February  6,  1917,  that  he  estimated  the 
Germans  held  1,500,000  Russians,  400,000 
French,  50,000  Belgians,  and  35,000  Brit- 
ish. According  to  that,  the  Germans 
would  have  captured  300,000  Russians, 
44.000  French,  8,000  Belgians,  and  4,000 
British  between  August,  1916,  and  Feb- 
ruary, 1917. 


I2O 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  was  the  British  figure  at 
the  end  of  1917? 

A.-*-The  British  War  Office,  on  Dec. 
29,  1917,  announced  that  the  number  of 
British  prisoners  held  by  tne  enemy,  in- 
cluding those  in  Switzerland,  totaled  46,- 
712.  The  prisoners  include  members  of 
the  regular  army,  territorial  forces,  Royal 
Navy  and  naval  division,  held  in  the  fol- 
lowing countries :  In  Germany,  43,699 ;  in 
Turkey,  2,299;  in  Bulgaria,  628;  and  in 
Austria,  86.  There  are  2,257  officers  and 
44,455  men. 

This  statement,  compared  with  Lord 
Newton's  figures  of  February,  1917,  would 
indicate  that  between  those  dates  the  Ger- 
mans had  taken  about  8,000  more  men  on 
the  western  front 

Q. — What  was  the  total  number  of 
war-prisoners  after  two  years 
of  war? 

A. — It  seems  to  have  totaled  about 
4,175,000  men,  taking  all  armies  to- 
gether. Of  these,  the  Central  Powers  had 
by  far  the  most,  probably  holding  at 
least  1,700,000  more  men  than  the  Allies 
— the  big  difference  being  due  largely  to 
their  great  captures  of  Russians. 

Q. — What  prisoners  did  the  Allies 
hold  in  1917? 

A. — The  Russians  claim  to  have  taken 
prisoner  some  1,500,000  Austrians  and 
Germans,  but  they  never  gave  exact  fig- 
ures. The  total  German  losses  in  prison- 
ers and  missing,  according  to  their  state- 
ment of  last  August,  was  400,000.  It  is 
assumed  that  the  French  held  something 
like  150,000.  The  British  had  58,000,  and 
the  Russians  presumably  had  the  rest. 
The  Italians  claimed  to  have  captured 
about  40,000  Austrians.  If  we  add  these 
approximate  figures  together  we  get  the 
following  result: 

In  England   58,000 

In  France 150,000 

In  Italy 40,000 

In  Russia  1,000,000 


Total  1,248,000 


Q. — What  prisoners  did  Germany's 
allies  hold  in  1916? 

A. — According  to  the  German  report, 
after  two  years'  war  the  Austrians  held 
781,566  Russians.  They  soon  added  to 
that  total,  and  it  would  be  perfectly  safe 
to  put  it  down  as  800,000;  if  we  do  this, 
and  include  the  Italians,  we  get  the  fol- 
lowing totals : 

In  Germany  (Lord  Newton's  es- 
timate)       1,985,000 

In  Austria — Russians  . .  800,000 
Italians  . . .  50,000 
Serbians  . . .  40,000 

800,000 

In  Bulgaria  38,000 

In  Turkey  14,000 

Total   2,927,000 

Q. — How  many  prisoners  had  the 
Austrians  in  1918? 

A. — According  to  the  German  official 
reports,  the  Austrians  had  800,000  prison- 
ers in  1916.  They  have;  of  course,  added 
heavily  to  that  total  since  then.  There 
has  been  the  big  drive  into  Italy,  which 
added  heavily  to  the  number  of  Italian 
prisoners  and,  after  that,  the  drive 
through  the  Ukraine.  It  may  be  assumed 
that  the  Austrians  hold  well  over  1,000,- 
ooo  prisoners. 

Q. — Where  did  Turkey  get  her 
prisoners? 

A. — Turkey  has,  among  others,  all  of 
General  Townshend's  army,  which  sur- 
rendered at  Kut  near  Bagdad.  Few  pris- 
oners were  taken  at  Gallipoli. 

Q. — What  was  the  fate  of  Ameri- 
cans taken  in  the  trench  raids 
in  November? 

A. — In  February,  1918,  six  of  the  twelve 
missing^  men  were  reported  as  being  pris- 
oners in  the  German  prison  camp  of 
Tuchel,  West  Prussia.  The  report  showed 
that  with  these  six  were  two  others,  who 
had  been  captured  in  a  later  raid. 


CASUALTIES  OF  WAR 


Q. — Are  the  losses  in  this  war 
really  greater  than  ever  be- 
fore? 

A. — That  was  the  general  belief,  and 
the  news  dispatches  told  almost  daily  of 
appalling  numbers  of  dead  after  even  a 
small  engagement.  However,  in  1917, 
the  Committee  on  Public  Information 
(Washington)  made  the  following  state- 
ment : 

"There  is  probably  little  basis  for  the 
idea  that  the  number  of  casualties  in  this 
war  is  any  greater,  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  men  engaged,  than  in  previous 
wars.  In  the  French  Army  during  the 
last  six  months  of  1916  (which  included 
three  big  offensives),  the  total  losses  in 
killed,  wounded,  and  prisoners  are  offi- 
cially reported  to  have  been  only  1.28  per 
cent  of  the  French  forces  under  arms." 

Secretary  of  War  Baker  said,  on  Nov. 
10,  1917: 

"Up  to  about  June  i,  the  losses  of  the 
British  expeditionary  forces  in  deaths  in 
action  and  deaths  from  wounds  were 
about  7  per  cent  of  the  total  of  all  men 
sent  to  France  since  the  beginning  of  the 
war.  It  may  be  added  that  the  ratio  of 
losses  of  this  character  to-day,  because 
of  improved  tactics  and  the  swiftly 
mounting  Allied  superiority  in  artillery', 
is  less  than  seven  to  every  hundred  men." 

Q. — How  did  the  various  Govern- 
ments report  their  losses? 

A. — Each  Government  organized  a  big 
staff  of  accountants  who  received  the  de- 
tailed lists  of  dead  and  wounded  from 
the  front,  arranged  them,  and  sent  official 
notifications  to  the  nearest  of  kin.  Thus, 
while  every  family  was  fully  and  promptly 
informed  of  any  of  its  members  dead  or 
wounded,  the  information,  being  scat- 
tered in  detail  throughout  the  whole  coun- 
try, was  of  no  use  to  the  enemy,  for 
nobody  could  gather  all  the  individual 
reports,  of  course. 

Q. — Have  the  nations  at  war  tried 
to  hide  their  total  casualties? 

A. — Yes  and  no.  They  have  tried  sys- 
tematically to  hide  them  from  their  ene- 
mies, of  course.  They  have  also  tried  in 
various  ways  not  to  dismay  their  own 
people  by  too  sudden  or  drastic  a  state- 
ment of  aggregate  losses,  especially  after 
heavy  engagements.  For  this  purpose  they 


have  tried  many  methods  and  ways  of 
presenting  the  facts  in  what  they  deemed 
the  most  advisable  form.  In  conse- 
quence, even  the  most  careful  statistician 
with  the  best  accumulations  of  official 
statements  before  him,  finds  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  give  accurate  and  final  esti- 
mates of  the  total  losses  in  this  war. 

Q. — Did   the   British   Government 
not  report  its  aggregate  losses? 

A. — Yes.  It  issued  weekly  and  monthly 
lists,  and  then  made  it  a  regular  thing 
to  issue  a  weekly  list  giving  in  total  the 
number  of  officers  and  men  killed, 
wounded  or  missing. 

Q. — How  did  the  outer  world  get 
reports  of  the  German  losses? 

A. — The  Germans  posted  printed  local 
lists  in  all  the  town  halls,  post-offices,  and 
other  places  where  the  public  could  see 
them  and  look  for  the  names  of  friends 
or  kindred.  It  was  easy  enough  to  ascer- 
tain the  lengths  of  the  columns  and,  by 
counting  the  names  in  one,  to  estimate 
the  whole  number  at  a  glance.  As  the 
country  was  full  of  neutrals  in  the  early 
part  of  the  war,  this  information  went 
out  pretty  freely.  After  some  time,  how- 
ever, it  was  discovered  that  the  German 
system  of  army  corps,  divisions,  etc., 
caused  many  duplications,  the  same  name 
being  given  in  different  lists  in  different 
parts  of  the  country.  However,  with 
estimates  and  the  figures  given  from  time 
to  time  by  the  Government,  a  fairly  ac- 
curate estimate  was  reached. 

Q. — Have  the  French  made  their 
losses  public? 

A. — No.  The  French  have  maintained 
consistently  that  it^  would  give  the  Ger- 
mans important  information,  and  in 
March,  1918,  they  represented  to  General 
Pershing  that  the  American  custom  of 
making  public  full  details  of  names,  resi- 
dences, etc.,  of  killed  and  wounded  was 
dangerous.  General  Peyton  C.  March,  act- 
ing Chief  of  Staff  in  Washington,  in  dis- 
cussing the  French  attitude,  repeated  that 
the  French  Government  has  never  issued 
a  casualty  list  of  any  kind  since  the  be- 
ginning of  the  war.  The  French  War 
Office  in  Paris  transmits  the  name  of 
every  man  killed  or  wounded  to  the  mayor 
of  the  town  from  which  he  came,  and  this 
official  notifies  the  family. 


121 


122 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Can  a  fairly  close  estimate  of 
the  total  killed  and  wounded 
be  made? 

A. — Yes.  After  checking  and  re-check- 
ing many  dozen  estimates,  and  testing  the 
reports  and  estimates  of  each  side  against 
those  of  the  other  side,  we  find  that  we 
can  get  figures  that  approximate  correct- 
ness pretty  well,  so  far  as  the  Germans, 
British  and  French  are  concerned. 

Q. — What  are  these  total  figures  of 
killed? 

A. — The  figures  that  appear  the  most 
nearly  correct  show  the  following  totals 
for  the  whole  war  up  to  about  October, 
1917:  German  killed,  1,500,000;  French 
killed,  1,057,000;  British  killed,  1,159,000, 
or  a  total  of  3,716,000  dead  for  these  three 
nations  alone. 

Q. — How  many  were  lost  by  Rus- 
sians, Serbs,  etc.? 

A. — Their  figures  are  wildly  conflicting. 
It  is  impossible,  too,  to  give  accurate  fig- 
ures of  Italian  losses. 

Q. — Were  not  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands killed  in  single  engage- 
ments ? 

A. — Dispatches  hot  from  a  scene  of 
war  are  almost  always  "subject  to  cor- 
rection." Generally  the  correction  has  to 
be  pretty  radical.  During  the  Russo- 
Japanese  War,  for  instance,  a  well-known 
newspaper,  which  was  enthusiastically  in 
favor  of  Russia,  announced  such  killings 
of  Japanese  in  each  of  the  early  battles, 
that  long  before  the  war  was  ended  the 
entire  Japanese  army  had  been  utterly  de- 
stroyed. As  the  Japanese  subsequently 
took  Port  Arthur,  and  fought  the  Battle 
of  Mukden,  an  unkind  commentator  re- 
marked that  it  must  have  been  done  by 
Japanese  ghosts. 

Q. — What  was  the  total  of  wound- 
ed in  the  whole  war? 

A.— Up  to  October,  1917,  the  total 
wounded  appear  to  have  been :  German, 
3,100,000;  French,  3,900,000;  British,  2,- 
900,000— or  a  total  of  9,900,000  men  for 
the  three  big  nations  alone. 

Q. — Has  there  been  an  estimate  of 
the  wounded  of  all  nations? 

A. — Yes.  A  report  made  to  Congress 
in  February,  1918,  said  : 

"There   are   at   present   approximately 


13,000,000  wounded  and  crippled  soldiers 
in  the  belligerent  countries  of   Europe." 

Q. — What  were  the   German  offi- 
cial figures  ? 

A. — The  casualties  reported  in  the  Ger- 
man official  lists  were,  to  the  end  of  June, 
1917,  as  follows: 

Killed  and  died   from  wounds  1,032,800 

Died  from  sickness   72,960 

Prisoners    316,506 

Missing 275,460 

Severely  wounded 590,883 

Wounded   315,239 

Wounded,    but     remaining    in 

service 263,774 

Slightly  wounded 1,655,685 


Total   4,523,307 

Q. — How  did  their  opponents  fig- 
ure the  German  losses? 

A. — Almost  exactly  the  same.  The 
French  Government  made  an  estimate 
that  in  September,  1917,  Germany  had 
6,100,000  men  in  military  service  on  the 
front  lines  or  behind  them ;  had  lost  as 
killed,  disabled,  or  prisoners,  4,000,000 ; 
and  had  in  hospitals  500,000  more,  mak- 
ing a  grand  total  of  10,600,000  men  who 
have  been  used  in  war.  According  to  the 
same  estimate,  Germany  has  had  14,000,- 
ooo  men  available  since  1914  and  including 
the  class  of  1920  (now  in  their  seven- 
teenth year).  In  the  3,400,000  men  of 
military  age  not  yet  in  the  army  are  in- 
cluded those  physically  unfit,  and  those 
indispensable  to  her  industries. 

Q. — Has  no  reliable  estimate  been 
made  of  total  losses  for  all  the 
nations? 

A. — No.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to 
gain  anything  like  a  clear  idea  from  the 
confused  and  very  contradictory  reports 
that  were  made  by  the  Russian,  Austrian, 
Serbian,  Bulgarian,  and  Turkish  Govern- 
ments. That  the  Russian  losses  from 
death  in  battle,  wounds  and  disease  were 
enormous,  we  know.  We  know,  too,  that 
the  Austrian  losses  have  been  exceedingly 
heavy,  but  we  do  not  know  how  nearly 
they  approximate  to  the  French.  It  seems 
reasonably  well  established  that  they  are 
less  than  were  the  Russian,  and  that  they 
must  be  far  less  than  the  German  losses, 
who  fought  on  many  fronts. 

Arthur  Henderson,  while  a  member  of 
the  British  War  Cabinet,  said  that  the 
total  losses  to  both  sides  in  killed,  wound- 
ed and  missing  were  46  million. 


Casualties  of  War 


123 


Q. — What  proportion  of  wounded 
men  die? 

A. — Modern  surgery  has  so  progressed 
that  only  about  eight  per  cent  of  the 
wounded  fail  to  survive.  Of  the  remain- 
ing 92  per  cent,  about  20  per  cent  are 
more  or  less  permanently  disabled.  The 
rest  are  able  to  return  to  the  firing  line. 
Thus,  about  72  per  cent  of  the  wounded 
recover. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  more  than  ninety 
per  cent  of  the  German  wound- 
ed recover  and  return  to  the 
front? 

A. — The  German  military  authorities 
declare  that  89  per  cent  return  to  duty. 
The  Committee  on  Public  Information, 
In  its  "Home-Reading  Course  for  Amer- 
ican Citizen  Soldiers,"  says : 

"Even  in  the  early  months  of  the  war 
it  was  announced  that  of  the  wounded 
actually  treated  in  French  hospitals,  54.5 
per  cent  were  returned  to  duty  within  a 
short  time;  24.5  per  cent  were  sent  home 
to  complete  recovery,  and  later  returned 
to  duty;  17  per  cent  at  the  time  of  mak- 
ing the  report  were  still  in  hospitals,  with 
the  probability  of  complete  recovery;  1.5 
per  cent  were  unfit  for  further  service ; 
2.5  per  cent  had  died  from  the  effects  of 
their  wounds." 

This  would  make  79  per  cent  of  the 
wounded  returning  to  duty,  and,  adding 
the  17  per  cent  who  were  listed  as  prob- 
ably sure  to  recover,  it  would  make  96 
per  cent. 

However,  it  is  extremely  unlikely  that 
this  great  percentage  can  all  return  to  the 
fighting  work  known  as  "active  duty." 
A  big  proportion  must,  no  doubt,  be  as- 
signed to  easier  work,  behind  the  lines, 
guarding  communications,  etc. 

Q. — What  was  the  ratio  of  killed 
in  the  third  year  of  war? 

A. — Much  less  than  it  had  been  in  the 
earlier  periods.  In  March,  1918,  a  United 
States  Government  report  said : 

"It  appears  that  the  killed  in  action  and 
died  of  wounds  have  not  exceeded  one- 
fifth  of  the  total  casualties.  Approxi- 
mately four-fifths  survive.  Some  among 
these  recover  completely,  developing  100 
per  cent  of  their  former  vocational  ef- 
ficiency; some  recover  partial  efficiency 
in  their  old  employment ;  some  are  inca- 
pacitated totally  for  their  old  employment, 
but  are  capable  of  greater  or  less  effi- 
ciency in  other  employments,  provided 


they  get  the  vocational  training  required 
to  overcome  their  specific  handicaps  ;  some 
are  totally  incapable  for  any  sort  of  vo- 
cational training. 

Q. — Has  the  rate  of  casualties  de- 
creased steadily  in  this  war? 

A. — Yes.  In  France,  for  instance,  the 
ratio  of  casualties  was  highest  during  the 
opening  period  of  the  war,  in  which  the 
battles  of  Charleroi  and  the  Marne  were 
fought.  In  each  six  months  of  the  years 
1915  and  1916  the  ratio  of  casualties  to 
men  mobilized  in  the  French  Army  de- 
clined :  from  2.39  per  cent  in  the  first  six 
months  of  1915  to  1.68  per  cent  in  the 
six  months  following;  to  1.47  per  cent  in 
the  first  half  of  1916,  and  to  1.28  per  cent 
in  the  latter  half  of  that  year. 

Q. — Is    every    "disabled"    man    a 
hopeless  cripple? 

A. — An  official  statement  made  in 
Washington  early  in  1917  said : 

"The  popular  idea  that  every  disabled 
man  is  a  cripple  is  disproved  by  the  fig- 
ures of  the  inter-Allied  conference,  held 
in  Paris  in  May,  1917.  These  figures  show 
only  167  cases  of  amputation  in  every  1,000 
disabilities.  Consequently,  833  cases  in 
every  1,000  are  injuries  of  other  kinds. 
The  men  are  classified  according  to  their 
most  serious  disability,  but  in  14  or  15 
per  cent  of  all  cases  there  are  two  or 
three,  or  even  four,  injuries.  Blindness 
is  given  as  low  as  less  than  i  per  cent  of 
the  disabilities,  and  French  figures  give 
the  percentage  of  blindness  to  be  .05  per 
cent  of  the  soldiers  engaged  in  battle." 

Q. — Must  we  expect  many  of  our 
boys  to  return  disabled? 

A. — Canadian  figures,  published  early 
in  1918,  showed  that  10  per  cent  of  the 
men  sent  overseas  had  been  returned  phys- 
ically unfit  for  further  military  service, 
and  that  of  this  10  per  cent  30  per  cent 
were  in  hospitals  at  the  time  of  the  re- 
port. The  majority  of  these  patients  were 
convalescing,  since  men  are  not  returned 
to  Canada  until  their  physical  condition 
permits. 

On  the  basis  of  Canadian  and  of  Eu- 
ropean experience,  it  would  appear  that 
the  United  States  may  fairly  anticipate 
that  for  1,000,000  men  overseas  100,000 
will  be  returned  each  year  unfit  for  mili- 
tary service,  and  that  the  number  of  pa- 
tients constantly  in  the  hospitals  will  be 
from  30,000  to  50,000. 


124 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Just  what  number  of  men  are 
likely  to  be  disabled? 

A. — A  broad  general  estimate  by  Ameri- 
can  Government   experts   is   as    follows : 

'Number  of  men  in  service 1,000,000 

Number  of  men  returned  unfit 

for  military  service 100,000 

Number    not    requiring    voca- 
tional  re-education 80,000 

Number  requiring  vocational  re- 
education : 

Complete    10,000 

Partial    10,000 


The  vastness  of  the  losses  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  von  Hindenburg  drove  great 
masses  of  the  Czar's  soldiers  into  the 
lakes.  It  is  said  that  his  army  was  num- 
erically much  inferior  to  that  of  the  Rus- 
sians, but  by  the  skilful  use  of  the  rail- 
ways, on  ground  which  he  had  studied 
for  very  many  years,  he  was  able  to  de- 
ceive the  Russians  as  to  the  size  of  his 
forces,  and  entangle  them  in  the  lakes. 

Q. — What  casualties  have  the  Can- 
adians sustained? 

A— Up  to  the  end  of  June,  1917,  the 
casualties  were  as  follows : 

Killed  or  wounded   142,779 

Missing 31,955 

Discharged   26,000 


Q. — What  have  the  Australian  cas- 
ualties been? 

A. — Up  to  the  end  of  September,  1917, 
the  casualties  were  as  follows : 

OFFICERS. 


Q. — What  have  the  British  casual- 
ties been  lately? 

A. — British  casualties  reported  in  De- 
cember, 1917,  reached  a  total  of  79,527, 
divided  as  follows :  Killed  or  died  of 
wounds — officers,  1,045;  men,  14,805. 
Wounded  or  missing — officers,  3,342;  men, 
60,335.  Casualties  reported  from  Decem- 
ber 26  to  31  were  9,951,  divided  as  fol- 
lows :  Killed  or  died  of  wounds — offi- 
cers, 65 ;  men,  2,059.  Wounded  or  miss- 
ing—officers, 238 ;  men,  7,589.  The  total  Dead  1,358 

British  casualties  for  the  last  six  months         Wounded  1,183 

of  1917  were  521,373,  the  lowest  figure  in         Missing  ..I.................  '40 

any  one  month  being  60,373  for  August.         Sick 1,337 

Prisoners 91 

Q. — What  is  the  proportion  of  offi-        Casualty  unknown 69 

cers  to  men  killed  and  wound- 
ed? Total    4,078 

A. — That    is    difficult   to    say,    as    only  CHAPLAINS. 

Great  Britain  gives  any  particulars  as  to 

how  many  officers  are  among  the  casual-         Dead  

ties.     It  is  pretty  certain  that  at  the  be-         Wounded 

ginning  of  the  war  the  losses  of  English         Sick 25 

officers   were  heavier  than  those   of   the 

French,  Germans  or  Russians.     All  neu-  Total 

trals  appear  to  agree  that  the  British  of- 
ficer exposed  himself  too  much,  but  that  NURSES, 
fault  has  been  remedied,  and  they  have         T)    A 

learned  that,  after  all,  an  officer  is  the         ^J       ',". 

part  of  the  machinery  of  an  army  most         ^:r 
difficult  to  replace.     Roughly,  there  was 
one  officer  to  every  forty  men  in  the  Brit-             T  t  1 
ish  Army.   In  the  early  engagements  there 
was   one   officer   to   every  thirty   men   in 
the  casualty  lists,  but  sometimes  the  pro- 
portion was  as  high  as  one  to  fifteen.  Dead  30,456 

The    proportion    of    British    officers    to          Wounded    '.  43,043 

men  killed  ran  about  I  to  15  in  1917  and         Missing    .   .. ".         '.         .. ".         1644 
*9i8.  Sick    .......I.!!..*..*.*....!.      25,294 

Prisoners    2,810 

Q. — What  were  the  Russian  losses        Casualty  unknown  180 

at  Tannenberg? 

Total    103,427 

A. — Seventy    thousand    men    were    re- 
ported to  have  been  captured  there,  and         The  total  number  of  Australians  out  of 
some    100,000    were    killed    or    wounded,      action  is  107,690. 


Casualties  of  War 


125 


Q. — How  many  Germans  fell  in  the 
attack  on  Liege? 

A. — The  various  reports  of  losses  that 
were  spread  through  the  world,  if  added 
up,  would  have  totaled  almost  120,000. 
As  the  entire  attacking  army,  under  von 
Emmich,  consisted,  when  strongest,  of 
40,000  men  only,  this  figure  is  obviously 
absurd.  The  Germans  say  that  they  lost 
10,000  killed  and  wounded  before  Liege 
surrendered. 

Q. — What  were  the  British  casual- 
ties in  the  Gallipoli  campaign? 

A. — It  was  officially  stated  that  up  to 
December  9,  1915,  the  total  number  of 
British  casualties  at  the  Dardanelles  were 
as  follows : 

Killed— 

Officers    1,667 

Others    24,535 

Wounded — 

Officers 3,028 

Others 72,781 

Missing — 

Officers    350 

Others    12,194 


A    total    altogether    of  114,555 

The  Australian  casualty  lists,  as  pub- 
lished there  up  to  the  end  of  March,  1916, 
gave  the  following  total : 

Dead- 
Officer    347 

Others 6,443 

Wounded — 

Officers    262 

Others    10,118 

Missing — 

Officers 19 

Others    1,887 


A  total  altogether  of. .       19,076 

If  we  deduct  this  from  the  114,555 
British  casualties)  we  get  the  losses  (95,- 
ooo),  which  were  sustained  by  British 
forces,  other  than  Australian,  on  the  Pen- 
insula. It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that,  as 
the  British  losses  were  five  times  as  great 
as  the  Australian,  there  must  have  been 
five  times  as  many  British  and  Indian 
troops  used  on  the  peninsula  as  there 
were  Australian.  In  addition,  there  were 
a  large  number  of  French  soldiers  used  at 
Krithia. 


Q. — How  much  does  it  cost  to  kill 
a  soldier? 

m  A. — The  French  General  Percin  has  es- 
timated that  in  the  Franco-Prussian  War 
of  1870-71,  it  cost  $21,000  each;  in  the 
Russo-Japanese  War  of  1005,  it  cost  $20,- 
500.  It  is  impossible  to  make  even  a 
rough  estimate  as  to  the  amount  it  costs 
to  kill  a  man  in  the  present  war.  It  is 
undoubtedly  costing  more  to  kill  one  now 
than  it  did  in  1914.  If  we  assume  that 
during  the  first  three  years  the  total  num- 
ber of  men  killed  was  3,000,000,  and  the 
total  amount  of  cash  expended  by  the 
belligerents  on  the  war  was  $75,000,000,- 
ooo,  it  would  work  out  at  $25,000  per  man 
killed. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  the  Germans  use 
moss  instead  of  cotton  wool 
for  dressing  wounds? 

A. — The  Germans  are  not  alone  in  using 
it.  Sphagnum  moss  is  used  by  the  British 
also.  Special  machinery  has  been  set  up 
in  Scotland  to  prepare  the  moss  for  use. 
It  is  washed  first  and  freed  from  any 
foreign  substance.  It  then  is  wrung  out 
and  passes  to  the  drying  room.  After  be- 
ing thoroughly  dried  it  is  weighed  and 
compressed  in  powerful  hydraulic  presses. 
It  is  being  widely  used  now,  giving  in- 
deed much  better  results  than  cotton  wool. 
Its  healing  powers  were  discovered  quite 
by  accident.  A  worker  met  with  a  se- 
rious injury  in  a  peat  moss  litter  works 
in  Germany,  and,  no  appliances  being 
handy,  his  fellows  laid  moss  litter  on  the 
wound  and  bandaged  it  up.  When  the 
man  reached  a  hospital,  the  doctors  were 
horrified  at  the  dirty-looking  litter,  and 
declared  that  the  limb  would  have  to  be 
amputated.  They  found,  however,  that 
far  from  poisoning  the  wound,  as  they 
had  feared,  the  injury  had  been  actually 
cleaned  by  the  rude  emergency  dressing. 
Thus  was  "discovered"  sphagnum  moss 
from  the  surgeon's  point  of  view. 

Q. — Are  all  soldiers  vaccinated 
against  typhoid? 

A.— Yes.  All  the  British,  French,  Ger- 
man and  American  soldiers  are  inoculated 
against  typhoid  on  the  American  plan, 
which  proved  singularly  successful  only 
recently  when  our  troops  were  on  the 
Mexican  border.  The  Japanese  used  the 
system,  or  one  like  it,  in  the  Russo-Jap- 
anese War  with  wonderful  results. 

Q. — Are  our  soldiers  vaccinated 
against  anything  else? 

_  A. — Yes.  They  get  a  series  of  inocula- 
tions. They  are,  of  course,  vaccinated 


126 


Questions  and  Answers 


against  small-pox.  In  addition,  they  are 
inoculated  against  the  pneumonia  germ, 
against  measles  and  scarlet  fever,  and  spe- 
cialists were  working  in  1918  to  find  the 
germ  of  the  dreaded  "trench  fever." 

Q. — What  is  tetanus? 

A. — It  is  the  disorder  known  by  the 
common  name  of  lockjaw.  It  is  caused 
by  the  bacilli  tctani,  a  germ  having  its 
home  in  the  earth.  For  this  reason  the 
grim  affliction  is  so  prevalent  among 
wounded  soldiers,  who  often  lie  for  hours 
with  open  wounds,  on  the  fields,  or  in 
trenches.  In  acute  cases  the  chance  of  re- 
covery is  exceedingly  remote. 

Q. — Is  there  no  cure? 

A. — There  is  an  antitoxin  treatment, 
first  used  on  an  extensive  and  radical  scale 
during  the  war.  It  is  not  a  positive  cure, 
but  it  has  greatly  minimized  the  fatali- 
ties. 

Q. — What  happens  to  wounded  be- 
tween two  lines? 

A. — The  wounded  remain  where  they 
fall.  It  is  impossible  to  remove  them. 
Those  who  can  do  so  endeavor  to  crawl 
away.  Succeeding  charges  go  over  them. 
There  is  no  practice  in  the  war  of  allow- 
ing the  enemy  to  remove  them  from  the 
zone  of  fire.  After  the  attacks  have 
failed,  all  those  who  are  severely  wounded 
may  have  to  remain  where  they  are,  and 
the  majority  die. 

Q. — How   does    care   of  wounded 
compare  with  the  Civil  War? 

A. — The  wounded  in  the  Civil  War 
were  collected  at  night  by  both  armies, 
instead  of  during  the  conflict,  each  side 
by  mutual  agreement  allowing  the  other 
side  to  carry  on  the  work  unmolested. 

Little  was  done  toward  speeding  up  the 
treatment  of  the  wounded,  except  in  a 
few  cases  that  came  to  the  attention  of 
the  army  surgeon,  as  he  rode  about  the 
battlefield  in  company  with  mounted  staff 
officers.  He  would  select  a  few  of  the 
less  serious  cases,  carry  them  to  a  favor- 
able place,  and  give  treatment.  Only  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  war  were  anything 
like  dressing-stations  or  field-hospitals  es- 
tablished, and  then  only  when  buildings 
near  by  offered  temporary  shelter. 

Q. — Does  the  medical  service  suf- 
fer heavily  in  this  war? 

A. — During  three  years  of  war  the 
British  Medical  Corps  suffered  11,667  cas- 
ualties, with  a  death-roll  of  1,200. 


Q. — Are    many    soldiers    incapaci- 
tated without  being  wounded? 

A. — Yes.  Very  many.  There  are  big 
groups  who  suffer  from  functional  dis- 
turbances of  the  central  nervous  system. 
These  cases  present  paralyses  and  other 
disturbances  of  locomotion,  which  are 
purely  hysterical,  or  they  show  mental  dis- 
orders which  are  also  functional,  but  are 
like  true  insanity.  One  of  the  character- 
istic cases  is  that  known  as  "shell  shock," 
due  to  sudden  and  unexpected  exposure 
to  the  vibration  and  noise  of  the  discharge 
of  high  explosives.  Much  success  has 
been  achieved  by  systems  of  nerve  and 
muscle  education,  especially  in  French  in- 
stitutions devoted  to  this  work. 

Q. — Has    the    war    produced   new 
diseases? 

A. — Yes — new  in  the  sense  that  Western 
and  Central  Europe  had  never  been  af- 
flicted by  them  before.  One  is  "spotted 
typhus,"  carried  by  the  body  louse — nor- 
mally found  only  in  Southeastern  Europe. 
Another  disease  is  known  as  "trench 
fever,"  which  is  a  short,  very  debilitating 
fever  of  low  mortality,  that  incapacitates 
its  victims  for  an  appreciable  period. 

Q. — Has  antisepsis  been  developed 
in  this  war? 

A. — Very  much  so.  Dr.  Samuel  W. 
Lambert,  dean  of  the  College  of  Physi- 
cians and  Surgeons,  says : 

"The  greatest  additions  to  the  anti- 
septic treatment  of  wounds  have  come 
from  the  studies  of  Dr.  Dakin,  who  has 
applied  the  properties  of  chlorine  prepara- 
tions to  the  disinfection  of  wounds.  The 
problem  which  he  solved  was  to  discover 
strong  antiseptics  able  to  destroy  microbes 
without  damaging  normal  tissues.  Dr. 
Alexis  Carrel  developed  a  method  of 
using  Dr.  Dakin's  antiseptics  by  putting 
into  the  wounded  tissues  a  system  of 
multiple  tubes,  and  thus  keeping  the 
wound  constantly  washed  with  the  anti- 
septic solution." 

Q. — Can  disabled  soldiers  really  be 
made  self-supporting? 

A. — Of  the  men  returned  in  Canada 
unfit  for  military  service,  80  per  cent  re- 
turn to  their  former  occupations  without 
vocational  training  or  are  incapable  of 
such  training,  and  20  per  cent  require  vo- 
cational training.  One-half  of  those  re- 
quiring vocational  training,  or  10  per  cent 
of  those  returned  unfit  for  military  serv- 
ice, require  complete  vocational  re-educa- 


Casualties  of  War 


127 


tion,  and  one-half  partial  vocational  re- 
education. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  nation  to 
use  her  wounded  over  again? 

A. — Belgium,  whose  depletion  has  been 
the  greatest,  was  the  first  nation  success- 
fully to  use  her  men  over  again.  Not 
only  has  the  large  Belgian  re-education 
center  of  Port  Villez  been  self-support- 
ing, but  it  has  paid  back  to  the  Belgian 
Government  the  entire  capital  cost  of  in- 
stallation. The  men,  meantime,  have  not 
only  received  43  centimes  per  day,  the 
regular  pay  of  the  Belgian  soldier,  but 
also  5  to  20  centimes  an  hour,  according 
to  their  work.  In  addition,  surplus  prof- 
its are  funded  for  the  men.  Forty-three 
trades  are  taught  at  Port  Villez  under  the 
most  competent  instructors.  A  large  part 
of  the  material  for  the  Belgian  Army  is 
made  by  them. 

Q. — What  are  we  going  to  do  about 
men  who  are  disabled? 

A. — Plans  for  the  rehabilitation  and  re- 
education of  soldiers  and  sailors  disabled 
in  the  war,  so  that  they  may  actually  earn 
higher  wages  than  before  their  enlistment, 
have  been  outlined  in  two  reports  sub- 
mitted to  Congress  by  the  Federal  Board 
of  Vocational  Education.  The  reports 
urged  an  immediate  appropriation  for  the 
training  of  teachers  for  the  work  and  for 
establishing  great  schools  near  hospitals 
in  all  parts  of  the  country. 


Q. — Has  Germany  reclaimed  many 
disabled  men? 

A.— The  Federal  Board  of  Vocational 
Education  says: 

"It  is  claimed  that  Germany  uses 
85  to  oo  per  cent  of  her  disabled  back  of 
the  lines,  and  that  the  majority  of  the  re- 
maining 10  to  15  per  cent  are  entirely  self- 
supporting." 


Q. — What  is  the  difference  be- 
tween indemnity  and  repara- 
tion? 

A. — In  many  ways  the  terms  are  syn- 
onymous. A  nation  sufficiently  victorious 
to  lay  down  terms  that  its  enemy  simply 
must  accept,  would  be  very  likely  to  make 
only  very  dubious  technical  distinction  be- 
tween the  two. 

Adhering  closely  to  the  narrow  mean- 
ing of  the  two  words,  however,  there  is  a 
decided  difference.  The  payment  of  in- 
demnity carries  with  it  a  confession  that 
the  nation  paying  it  ^  has  wrongfully 
caused  a  war.  No  nation  acknowledges 
such  a  thing  as  a  rule.  Therefore  in- 
demnity in  its  final  essence  is  a  payment 
exacted  under  duress  from  a  vanquished 
nation. 

Reparation,  on  the  other  hand,  may  con- 
ceivably be  a  voluntary  payment  made  by 
a  victorious  nation.  Such  reparation 
would  be  chiefly  a  matter  of  bookkeep- 
ing, limiting  itself  to  repayment  of  actual 
material  values  destroyed.  It  might  pos- 
sibly extend  so  far  as  to  repay  even  the 
war-expenses  of  the  nation  getting  the 
reparation,  but  that  is  highly  unlikely. 

Q. — Which  would  involve  the  most 
money — indemnity  or  repara- 
tion? 

A. — Indemnity  is  an  arbitrarily  fixed 
sum  which  the  vanquished  nation  is  ex- 
pected to  pay  without  argument.  A  victor 
might  exact  an  indemnity  which  is  actu- 
ally less  than  his  own  material  money 
losses — that  is,  it  might  be  less  than 
actual  reparation  would  cost.  But  indem- 
nity generally  is  a  huge  sum  whose  basic 
principle  would  be  that  the  vanquished 
must  pay  first  of  all  the  war-expenses  of 
the  victor.  To  this  might  be  added  any- 
thing that  the  victor  may  choose,  or,  at 
least,  as  much  as  he  might  think  the  van- 
quished can  pay.  Such  indemnity  might 
include  both  material  and  intangible 
damages — loss  of  life,  of  trade,  sufferings 
of  the  nation  at  home,  loss  of  trade,  in- 
jury to  national  prestige,  even  injury  to 
national  dignity. 


BATTLES  OF  THE  GREAT  WAR 


Q. — What   was    the    first    pitched 
battle  of  the  war? 

A. — The  first  pitched  battle  of  the  war 
was  in  front  of  Metz  after  French  forces 
had  crossed  the  German  frontier.  It  was 
fought  while  German  forces  still  were  in 
Belgium,  before  they  had  made  their  way 
into  France.  The  French  were  defeated. 

Q. — How  many  British  fought  at 
Namur? 

A. — It  is  estimated  by  British  writers 
that  French's  command  at  that  time  was 
about  70,000  men. 

Q.__Why  did  the  French  fall  back 
on  Paris? 

A. — The  original  French  plan  called  for 
a  stand  at  the  Belgium  frontier  near 
Namur.  This  point  was  to  be  held  by  a 
smaller  force  than  was  thrown  against  it 
by  the  enemy  and  was  to  hold  out  at  all 
costs.  Behind  the  line  were  to  be  collected 
the  reserves  and  forces  of  maneuvering 
until  they  were  so  organized  as  to  be 
able  to  strike  a  concentrated  blow  at  some 
point. 

The  force  at  Namur  did  not  hold  out 
so  long  as  was  necessary  and  they  were 
virtually  overwhelmed  and  came  near  to 
being  outflanked.  Consequently  they  had 
to  retreat  or  be  annihilated.  They  re- 
treated and  the  whole  French  line  had 
to  fall  back  with  them.  It  fell  back  as 
slowly  as  possible  so  as  to  allow  the 
maneuvering  masses  to  form  at  its  rear. 
These  masses  were  in  fighting  trim  when 
the  Meuse  was  reached ;  here  a  stand  was 
made  and  their  strength  brought  into 
play. 


Q. — When    did    a    Russian    army 
make  a  wonderful  escape? 

A. — After  the  fall  of  Warsaw  in  1915, 
General  Hindenburg  tried  to  smash  be- 
tween two  parts  of  the  Russian  Army,  and 
capture  or  destroy  it  in  the  Pripet 
Marshes.  The  Russian  situation  was  so 
desperate  that  for  a  few  days  total  disas- 
ter seemed  inevitable.  But  by  wonder- 
fully brilliant  tactics  (among  the  most 
brilliant  in  the  war,  during  which  at  one 
(ime  they  actually  surrounded  two  Ger- 
man army  corps  even  while  they  were 
rur rounded  themselves)  they  broke  their 
way  out. 

128 


The  retreat,  under  the  circumstances, 
could  not  fail  to  be  disastrous.  The  Ger- 
mans made  100,000  prisoners  during  a 
week;  but  the  Russian  Army,  as  an  army, 
was  saved. 

Q. — What  was  the  most  spectacu- 
lar operation  of  the  war? 

A. — Perhaps  it  was  the  sea  and  land 
attack  on  the  Dardanelles.  But  the  one 
that  was  clearest  and  most  graphic  to  the 
American  people  was  no  doubt  the  tre- 
mendous attack  on,  and  the  marvellous 
defense  of  Verdun,  the  military  key  to 
the  west  front,  which  the  German  Crow» 
Prince  tried  to  take  in  1916.  It  has  been, 
since  1871,  the  most  important  of  the 
French  defenses  on  the  eastern  frontier 
between  the  Argonne  and  the  Vosges. 

During  the  German  advance  of  1914 
Verdun  held  out  under  violent  attack, 
although  the  German  were  able  to  push  a 
deep  salient  to  the  south  at  St.  Mihiei. 

In  February,  1916,  the  armies  of  the 
German  Crown  Prince  began  a  furious 
and  sensational  assault  upon  Verdun.  At 
first  the  German  offensive  proved  irre- 
sistible and  led  to  the  capture  of  a  large 
portion  of  the  fortified  area  around  Ver- 
dun and  of  such  important  forts  as 
Douaumont  and  Vaux.  But  the  German 
losses  were  terrific.  Verdun  was  called 
"the  grave"  by  German  soldiers,  and  the 
final  check  administered  to  their  attacks 
by  the  French  marked  the  end  of  German 
offensive  for  a  long  period  on  the  western 
front.  A  counter  offensive,  organized  by 
General  Nivelle  in  October,  1916,  and  an- 
other in  August,  1917,  enabled  the  French 
at  small  cost  quickly  to  reclaim  practically 
all  the  ground  they  had  lost  in  the  great 
German  attack  of  1916. 

Q. — Is  the  Chemin  des  Dames  a 
fort? 

A. — No.  It  is  simply  a  road,  but  a  most 
important  one,  because  it  runs  along  a 
crest  of  hills  overlooking  the  valley  of 
the  Ailette  River  in  northern  France. 
Here  the  Germans  retained  a  foothold 
after  the  battle  of  the  Aisne.  The  French 
offensive  north  of  Rheims  in  the  summer 
of  1917  included  attacks  on  the  town  of 
Craonne  and  the  Chemin  des  Dames. 

The  French  success  at  the  Chemin  des 
Dames  in  June  furnished  some  of  the 
most  desperate  fighting  of  the  war.  Ger- 
man counter  attacks  against  the  ridge  in 


Battles  of  the  Great  War 


129 


July  outrivaled  their  attacks  at  Verdun. 
They  failed  to  dislodge  the  French  from 
their  advantage. 

Q. — Why  did  the  Russians  not 
break  into  Germany  early  in 
the  war? 

A. — They  did  so  twice  but  the  fortune 
of  war  went  badly  against  them.  Almost 
as  soon  as  war  began  they  sent  a  big  army 
into  East  Prussia,  but  August  26-31,  1914, 
General  Hindenburg  fought  and  won  the 
famous  Battle  of  Tannenberg  and  cap- 
tured practically  the  entire  army. 

In  January,  1915,  the  Russians  moved 
through  the  Mazurian  Lake  regions  (in 
the  same  general  territory  and  with  the 
same  general  object  of  over-running  East 
Prussia).  They  advanced  so  rapidly  that 
the  world  expected  the  certain  investment 
of  Koenigsberg  and  other  fortified  Ger- 
man cities.  But  in  February  Hindenburg 
again  countered  and  the  Russians  suffered 
a  terrific  disaster  in  the  lakes  and  swamps, 
being  routed  in  almost  complete  disorder 
and  losing  more  than  40,000  men  in  pris- 
oners beside  the  big  losses  in  killed.  This 
great  battle  ended  all  Russian  attempts 
to  invade  Germany.  After  that  the  Rus- 
sians centered  their  efforts  on  the  Aus- 
trian front,  so  far  as  attempts  at  inva- 
sion went. 

Q. — Was  Tannenberg  the  greatest 
victory  so  far? 

A. — It  was  the  greatest  success  in  a 
single  battle,  for  this  two-days'  victory 
over  the  Russians  on  August  29-31,  1914, 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Tannenberg  in 
East  Prussia,  resulted  in  the  capture  of 
70,000  Russians,  including  2  generals,  300 
officers  and  the  equipment  of  two  whole 
army  corps. 

Q. — Why  was  there  such  a  fight 
for  the  Carso? 

A. — Because  the  Carso  is  a  huge  moun- 
tainous plateau  that  commands  the  road 
to  Trieste.  It  is  near  the  head  of  the 
Adriatic  and  on  the  coast  road  from  the 
Isonzo  to  Trieste.  The  Italians  began  a 
mighty  offensive  in  this  region  late  in 
May,  1917.  Its  initial  success  promised 
to  clear  the  entire  front  from  Tolmino 
to  the  sea.  A  sudden  and  absolutely  ca- 
tastrophic Austro-German  drive  began  in 
this  region  in  October,  1917,  and  pressed 
the  Italians  back  to  the  Piave  River  after 
a  defeat  that  bade  fair  at  one  time  to 
shatter  the  Italian  resistance  and  give  all 
Venetia  to  the  invaders.  But  at  the  Piave 
the  Italians  succeeded  in  holding  fast. 


Q. — Was  the  Gallipoli  campaign  a 
failure  ? 

A. — Yes.  The  British  and  French 
forces  were  withdrawn  and  the  attempt 
to  force  the  Dardanelles  abandoned  after 
eight  months  fighting  in  which  115,000 
British  soldiers  alone  were  killed, 
wounded  or  captured. 

Q. — What  caused  the  British  fail- 
ure in  the  Dardanelles? 

A. — The  main  causes  of  the  failure  of 
the  Dardanelles  campaign  of  1915  are  con- 
sidered to  be:  First,  lack  of  concentra- 
tion of  military  forces  upon  the  Penin- 
sula of  Gallipoli,  due  to  the  fear  of 
German-Turkish  design  on  Egypt;  sec- 
ond, lack  of  co-operation  between  army 
and  navy;  third,  lack  of  heavy  artillery 
to  assist  in  reducing  the  Turkish  posi- 
tions ;  fourth,  the  natural  impregnable  na- 
ture of  the  straits. 

The  first  attempt,  made  by  the  navy 
alone,  was  a  total  failure  and  simply  dem- 
onstrated anew  that  fortifications  well 
armed  and  fought,  cannot  be  reduced 
from  the  sea  without  land  actions  to  assail 
the  forts  simultaneously  from  the  rear. 

Q. — Has    this    front    been    quite 
abandoned? 

A. — Gallipoli  was  completely  evacuated 
January  8,  1916. 

Q. — Has  there  been  any  really  de- 
cisive battle  so  far? 

A. — No — not  decisive  in  the  sense  of 
winning  the  war.  A  number  of  battles 
have  been  decisive  as  changing  the  phases 
of  the  war.  Thus  the  Battle  of  the  Marne 
in  September,  1914,  definitely  ended  the 
triumphant  sweep  of  the  Germans  toward 
Paris,  and  made  impossible  their  plans 
for  cutting  off  the  French  Army,  and  thus 
ending  the  war  in  the  west  quickly,  be- 
fore Russia  could  get  ready  in  the  east. 

Again  the  two  battles  (Tannenberg  and 
the  Mazurian  Lakes)  destroyed  the  Rus- 
sian plans  for  invading  Germany. 

The  first  battle  of  Verdun,  February  to 
October,  1916,  decided  the  character  of 
Germany's  warfare  for  a  long  time  there- 
after, forcing  the  Germans  to  a  defensive 
holding  of  their  line  in  place  of  an  of- 
fensive. 

The  battles  of  October  and  November, 
1917,  on  the  Isonzo  and  related  Italian 
fronts  swept  away  the  Italian  gains  of 
two  years  and  decisively  carried  the  war 
into  the  Italian  plains. 


130 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — When     was     Jerusalem     cap- 
tured? 

A. — Jerusalem  was  taken  by  the  British 
forces  under  General  Sir  Edmund  Alien- 
by  on  December  10,  1917,  and  the  victori- 
ous commander  entered  officially  at  noon 
on  December  nth.  The  final  attacks  near 
the  city  were  made  December  8th.  Gen- 
eral Allenby  entered  the  city  on  foot  with 
a  few  of  the  staff,  the  commanders  of  the 
French  and  Italian  detachments,  the  heads 
of  the  political  missions  and  the  mil- 
itary attaches  of  France,  Italy  and  Amer- 


Q. — Was  there  a  really  great  siege 
in  this  war? 

A. — Yes.  A  spectacular  and  wonderful 
siege  was  that  of  Przemysl  (pronounced 
Chemisel),  a  fortified  city  of  Galicia, 
which  was  invested  by  the  Russians  Sep- 
tember 16  to  October  14,  1914.  The  siege 
was  temporarily  abandoned  because  of 
Hindenburg's  offensive,  but  was  renewed 
in  November.  The  Austrian  garrison, 
completely  cut  off,  made  underground 
strongholds  and  batteries,  after  the 
outlying  fortifications  were  destroyed, 
and  for  a  time  aeroplanes  supplied 
food. 

The  siege  lasted  for  5  months  after  the 
second  investment  began,  the  garrison  not 
surrendering  until  March  22,  1915. 

The  Russian  victory  was  brief.  On 
June  3,  1915,  an  Austro-German  army, 
under  General  Mackensen,  retook  the  city 
and  kept  it. 

Q. — Were  there  any  other  remark- 
able sieges? 

A. — As  magnificent  as  the  defense  of 
Przemysl  and  even  more  romantic  was 
the  splendid  defense  of  the  besieged  Brit- 
ish army  in  Kut-el-Amara,  a  city  in  Meso- 
potamia about  100  miles  below  Bagdad, 
occupied  by  the  British  in  November, 
1915,  during  an  unsuccessful  advance  upon 
Bagdad.  The  British  force  under  Gen- 
eral Townshend  was  besieged  for  143 
days.  In  spite  of  a  Russian  column  pro- 
ceeding from  Erzerum  to  Kermanshah 
trying  to  make  a  junction  with  the  British 
at  Bagdad  or  Kut,  and  in  spite  of  a  British 
relief  force  moving  upon  Kut  from  the 
south,  General  Townshend  was  starved 
into  surrender  April  28-20,  1916,  after  such 
a  glorious  defense  as  will  hereafter  make 
one  of  the  grand  historical  land-marks  for 
England's  tale  of  heroism.  The  city  was 
reoccupied  by  the  British  under  General 
Maude.  February  24.  1917. 


Q. — What  was  the  first  time  dur- 
ing the  war  when  no  shot  was 
fired? 

A. — It  was  on  September  7,  1917,  when 
for  the  first  time  since  the  war  began,  not 
a  single  shot  was  fired  along  the  whole 
Russian  front.  It  was  the  beginning  of 
the  first  ten-days'  armistice. 

Q. — How  did  the  great  German 
offensive  of  1918  open? 

A. — It  began  March  21,  1918,  after  a 
terrific  but  comparatively  brief  prelimi- 
nary bombardment.  About  ninety-five 
German  divisions  of  12,000  men  each 
were  thrown  swiftly  against  the  British 
line  on  a  fifty-mile  front  from  Arras  to 
La  Fere.  A  mist  helped  the  operations 
of  the  Germans.  March  21-22  they  pene- 
trated the  first  lines.  By  March  23 
they  were  deep  in  the  British  positions, 
claimed  25,000  prisoners,  400  cannon,  300 
machine  guns.  The  Fifth  British  Army 
under  General  Gough  was  roughly 
handled  and  its  commander  was  super- 
seded. The  British  made  a  splendid  de- 
fense and  were  not  routed,  though  forced 
to  retire. 

March  24th  the  German  long-range  gun 
began  to  bombard  Paris,  and  Peronne 
and  Ham  were  taken,  with  German  claims 
of  30,000  prisoners,  600  guns.  March 
25th  Bapaume  was  in  their  hands. 
March  26th  the  Germans  took  Albert.  By 
April  i2th  they  were  being  held  on  the 
north  by  the  British,  but  on  the  south 
they  had  arrived  within  4l/2  miles  of  the 
great  railroad  from  Paris  to  Calais  via 
Amiens  and  were  making  a  new  attack 
on  the  north  around  Ypres. 

Q. — What  was  the  German  gain? 

A. — By  March  25th  they  had  not  only 
recaptured  the  ground  lost  in  the  big 
Battle  of  Cambrai,  November,  1917,  but 
they  had  pushed  back  the  Allied  lines 
almost  exactly  to  the  old  line  of  the 
Somme  as  it  stood  before  the  great  Al- 
lied attacks  of  July,  1916.  On  this  date 
the  Germans  had  advanced  in  several 
places,  well  beyond  the  old  line  of  the 
Somme.  South  of  Amiens  they  were 
within  five  miles  of  ground  reached  by 
them  in  the  first  vast  rush  toward  Paris 
in  1914.  They  had  advanced  into  the 
British  and  French  positions  in  distances 
ranging  from  five  miles  south  of  Arras 
to  forty  miles  on  the  Amiens  line.  By 
April  I2th,  they  claimed  about  100,000 
prisoners  —  an  estimate  which  Lloyd 
George  declared  was  exaggerated. 


SEA  FIGHTS  OF  THE  GREAT  WAR 


Q. — What  was  the  first  naval  battle 
of  the  war? 

A.— The  Battle  of  the  Bight  of  Heli- 
goland, August  28,  1914,  between  Sir 
David  Beatty's  cruiser  squadron  and  a 
fleet  of  German  cruisers.  The  Germans 
lost  three  cruisers,  the  Mains,  Koln,  and 
Ariadne,  and  the  British  one  destroyer. 
Seven  hundred  Germans  perished  and  300 
were  taken  prisoner. 

Q. — When  and  what  was  the  sea 
battle  of  Jutland? 

A. — May  31 -June  I,  1916.  It  was  the 
greatest  naval  battle  in  history,  in  point 
of  size  of  ships  and  tonnage  of  warships 
lost.  Germany's  High  Sea  fleet,  which 
had  been  for  twenty  months  idle  in  the 
Kiel  Canal,  dashed  out  a  hundred  miles 
or  so  from  the  Jutland  coast  into  the 
North  Sea,  under  command  of  Admirals 
von  Sheer  and  von  Hipper,  hoping  to  en- 
gage and  destroy  a  portion  of  the  British 
fleet  before  the  remainder  came  to  its  aid. 

The  British  battle-cruiser  fleet,  under 
Sir  David  Beatty,  whose  business  it  was 
to  make  periodical  sweeps  through  the 
North  Sea  for  the  enemy,  gave  chase,  in 
the  hope  of  getting  between  and  cutting 
off  the  German  fleet  from  its  base,  while 
wirelessing  for  the  British  battle  fleet, 
the  "Grand  Fleet,"  under  Sir  John  Jel- 
lico,  which  proceeded  at  full  speed  to 
join  Sir  David  Beatty.  The  fleets  en- 
gaged, resulting  in  the  loss  to  the  British 
fleet  of  six  large  ships  of  a  tonnage  of 
104,700,  and  to  the  German  fleet  of  six 
large  ships  with  a  tonnage  of  57,087. 

Both  England  and  Germany  have  ac- 
counted^  the  action  a  victory  ever  since, 
and  their  technical  writers  are  still  dem- 
onstrating the  reasons  for  the  claim. 

Q. — What  ships  were  lost  in  the 
great  Jutland  battle? 

A. — The  Germans  admit  the  following 
losses : 

Ships.  Tons. 

Lutzow  (battle-cruiser) 28,000 

Pommern  (pre-dreadnaught) 13,000 

Rostock  (light  cruiser) 4,820 

Prauenlob  (light  cruiser) 2,667 

Weisbaden  (light  cruiser) 4,300 

Elbing  (light  cruiser)  4,300 

Five  torpedo-boats 


The  British  admit  the  following  losses : 

Ships.  Tons. 

Queen  Mary  (battle-cruiser) 27,000 

Indefatigable    (battle-cruiser) 18,750 

Invincible    (battle-cruiser) 17,250 

Defence  (armored  cruiser) 14,600 

Black  Prince  (armored  cruiser)..  13,550 

Warrior  (armored  cruiser) 13,550 

Eight  destroyers 


Total  German  losses  in  heavy 
tonnage   57,087 


Total   British  losses   in  heavy 

tonnage    104,700 

This  battle  was  fought  May  3i-June  i, 
1916.  Each  side  for  a  time  declared  that 
the  other  side  had  suffered  more  losses 
than  it  would  admit,  but  the  United  States 
Naval  Institute  Proceedings  for  January, 
1918,  give  the  ships  listed  here,  and  this 
list  agrees  with  lists  given  out  some  time 
ago. 

Q.— Was  the  "Von  Moltke"  battle 
cruiser  sunk  by  a  British  sub- 
marine? 

A. — It  was  reported  that  she  was  sunk 
by  British  under-water  craft,  but  the  Ger- 
mans denied  her  loss.  In  the  official  Ger- 
man reports  about  the  Jutland  battle  men- 
tion is  made  of  this  battle-cruiser  as  hav- 
ing taken  part.  In  fact,  when  the  Lutsow 
was  knocked  out,  Admiral  von  Hipper 
transferred  his  flag  from  her  to  the  von 
Moltke,  according  to  report. 

It  is  well  established  now  that  the  only 
big  German  battleship-type  ships  sunk  in 
the  Jutland  battle  were  the  Lutsow  and 
the  Pommern. 

Q. — What  German  ships  fought  at 
theFalklands? 

A. — The  German  squadron,  under  Ad- 
miral von  Spec,  consisted  of  the  two  ar- 
mored cruisers  Gneisenau  and  Scharn- 
horst,  both  of  11,420  tons,  armed  with 
eight  8.2-inch  guns ;  the  Leipzig,  Niirn- 
berg  and  Dresden,  of  3,200,  3,350  and  3,544 
tons  respectively,  armed  with  4.1-inch 
guns.  There  was  also  a  supply  ship.  The 
Dresden,  a  sister  ship  to  the  Emden,  was 
engined  with  turbines,  and,  like  all  turbine 
boats,  was  able  to  develop  a  higher  speed 
than  that  on  her  recorded  trials.  Her 
speed  enabled  her  to  escape,  but  she  was 
sunk  later  when  at  anchor  in  Chilean  wa- 
ters. The  supply  boat  also  got  away,  but 
all  the  other  vessels  were  sunk,  their 
reciprocating  engines  only  giving  the 
quickest  of  them  a  speed  of  23  knots. 


132 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  was  the  British 
strength? 

A. — Admiral  Sturdcc's  fleet  consisted  of 
the  dreadnaught-cruisers  Inflexible  and 
Invincible,  both  of  17,250  tons,  armed  with 
eight  12-inch  guns,  and  with  a  speed  of 
25  knots ;  the  battleship  Canopus,  12,950 
tons,  four  12-inch  guns,  18.5  knots ;  the 
swift  cruisers  Glasgow  and  Bristol,  each 
4,800  tons,  two  6-inch  guns ;  the  armored 
cruiser  Carnarvon,  seven  5-inch  guns,  23 
knots;  and  the  Kent  and  the  Cornwall, 
Q,8oo  tons,  fourteen  6-inch  guns,  23  knots. 
The  Good  Hope,  sunk  by  the  German 
ships  off  the  Chilean  coast,  was  an  old 
vessel,  but  actually  larger  than  either  of 
the  Germans,  nominally  more  speedy,  and 
carried  heavier  guns,  but  only  two  of 
them. 

Q. — What  bounty  was  earned  by 
Admiral  Sturdee  and  his  crews  ? 

A. — They  received  the  ordinary  bounty 
of  £5  ($25)  per  head,  for  each  enemy 
sailor  on  the  destroyed  boats.  In  the 
Prize  Court,  held  on  August  21  and  pre- 
sided over  by  Sir  Samuel  Evans,  it  was 
proved  that  the  crews  of  the  enemy  ships 
destroyed  were  as  follows  : — Scharnhorst, 
872;  Gneisenau,  835;  Niirnberg,  384;  and 
Leipzig,  341 ;  a  total  of  2,432.  At  £5  a 
head  this  made  the  bounty  £12,160  ($60,- 
800),  which  was  accordingly  awarded  to 
Admiral  Sturdee  and  the  officers  and 
crews  of  the  Invincible,  Inflexible,  Car- 
narvon, Cornwall,  Kent  and  Glasgow. 
The  crew  of  the  Invincible  will  never  en- 
joy their  share  of  this  money,  as  that  bat- 
tle-cruiser was  sunk  in  the  Horn  Reef  en- 
gagement. The  other  two  vessels  of  Stur- 
dee's  fleet,  the  Bristol  and  Canopus,  took 
no  part  in  the  action. 

Q. — Did  any  members  of  Admiral 
von  Spec's  squadron  get  back 
to  Germany? 

A. — According  to  the  German  papers 
Lieutenant  Otto  Schenk.  one  of  the  few 
survivors,  did  succeed  in  reaching  Ger- 
many, after  a  journey  of  eight  months 
from  South  America. 

Q. — Was  the  "Dresden"  really  sunk 
in  neutral  waters? 

A. — She  was.  Great  Britain  formally 
apologized  for  the  occurrence  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Chile,  which  accepted  the  apol- 
ogy. Photographs  which  have  appeared 
in  the  British  papers — taken  by  officers  on 
the  British  warships  before  they  opened 
fire — show  that  the  German  vessel  was 


anchored  quite  close  inshore.  They  indi- 
cate the  nearness  of  the  hills.  The  Dres- 
den had  apparently  been  asked  by  the 
authorities  of  Juan  Fernandez — Robinson 
Crusoe's  island — to  leave,  and  had  not 
done  so.  That  was  the  excuse  given  by 
the  British  commander  for  violating  the 
neutrality  of  Chile.  The  Dresden  does 
not  appear  to  have  returned  the  fire  of 
the  British  ships.  The  crew  abandoned 
her  and  then  blew  her  up. 

Q._What  was  the  "Emden"? 

A. — She  was  a  small  protected  cruiser, 
3,500  tons,  24.5  knots,  twelve  4-inch  guns. 
She  and  her  sister,  the  Dresden,  were  the 
first  light  cruisers  the  Germans  fitted  with 
turbine  engines,  and  she  made  an  aston- 
ishing war-cruise  in  the  Pacific  and 
Indian  Oceans  soon  after  war  began. 

Q. — How  many  ships  did  the  "Em- 
den"  sink? 

A. — She  sank  altogether  seventeen  Brit- 
ish steamers,  and  captured  several  others, 
but  released  them  as  they  contained  car- 
goes belonging  to  neutrals.  The  vessels 
sunk  were  as  follows.  The  values  include 
ship  and  cargo,  and  are  estimated.  It 
will  be  seen  that  the  total  tonnage  lost 
amounted  to  74,881,  and  the  value  was 
$11,055,000. 

Ship.                         Tonnage.  Value. 

Indus  3,393  $690,000 

Lovat  6,102  300,000 

Killin  3,544  215,000 

Diplomat    7,615  1,500,000 

Trabboch    4,015  130,000 

Clan  Mathcson 4,775  ifx>,ooo 

Tymcric    3,314  005,000 

King  Lud  3,650  2  0,000 

Ribcra    3,5oo  1^0,000 

Foyle  4,147  150,000 

Buresk  4,35O  260,000 

Chilkana  5, 140  1,060,000 

Troilus 7,562  3,400,000 

Benmohr 4.806  815,000 

Clan  Grant 3,948  640,000 

Ponrabbcl 478  145,000 

Exford 4,542  275,000 

Q. — Did  the  captain  of  the  "Em- 
den"  respect  the  rules  of  war? 

A. — Apparently  Captain  von  Miiller  al- 
ways did  so.  He  disguised  his  ship  by 
putting  up  an  extra  funnel,  etc.,  permis- 
sible acts  in  war.  The  London  Times, 
commenting  on  the  sinking  of  the  ship 
by  the  Sydney,  said  that  "no  deed  of  bru- 
tality or  outrage  has  been  recorded  against 
her,  and  her  commander,  Captain  von 
Miiller,  is  reported  to  have  treated  the 


Sea  Fights  of  the  Great  War. 


133 


crews  of  the  vessels  which  he  captured 
with  generosity  and  courtesy."  It  also  re- 
ferred to  the  difficulty  of  the  operations 
undertaken  by  the  Emden,  and  said  that 
"she  carried  out  her  part  with  a  daring 
which  friend  and  foe  had  equally  recog- 
nized." 

Q.— Did  the  "Emden"  raid  Pen- 
ang  Harbor  under  the  Japanese 
flag? 

A. — A  British  captain,  whose  ship  was 
in  the  harbor  at  the  time,  said  definitely 
that  she  was  flying  no  flag  at  all  when  she 
came  in,  but  flew  the  German  ensign  when 
firing  on  the  Russian  cruiser.  Captain 
von  Miiller  himself  and  his  crew  assert 
that  they  never  flew  any  flag  but  their  own 
in  any  of  the  time,  if  they  showed  one  at 
all.  The  only  disguise  they  adopted  was 
to  add  another  funnel.  Penang  Harbor 
was  entered  at  night,  and  the  Russians 
were  almost  all  ashore. 

Q. — Did  the  Allied  ships  in  Penang 
expect  attack? 

A. — Evidently  not.  They  were  relying 
on  the  vigilance  of  two  French  destroyers, 
which  were  patrolling  the  two  entrances  to 
the  harbor.  The  Emden  never  met  the 
first  one,  although  a  pilot  boat  approached 
her  and  fled  as  soon  as  it  got  near  enough 
to  see  who  she  was.  The  first  torpedo 
fired  by  the  Germans  did  not  finish  the 
Zemtchug,  and  the  Emden  turned  and 
dispatched  another,  which  proved  fatal. 
The  German  officers  were  near  enough  to 
see  the  Russians  hastening  up  from  be- 
low in  confusion.  The  cruiser  left  by  the 
other  entrance,  and  there  met  and  sank 
the  French  destroyer  Mousquet. 

Q.— What  became  of  the  "Em- 
den's"  men  who  disappeared 
from  Cocos  Islands? 

A. — They  got  away  in  a  sailing  boat, 
and  finally  reached  the  coast  of  Arabia, 
some  3,500  miles  distant  from  the  scene 
of  the  disaster  which  overwhelmed  the 
German  raider.  From  Arabia  they  went 
overland  to  Constantinople.  The  story 
of  this  long  wandering  through  a  world 
of  foes  is  like  a  modern  Odyssey  and  it 
has  made  everybody  familiar  with  the 
name  of  von  Mucke,  the  young  naval 
officer  who  led  the  little  band. 

Q. — Did  von  Miiller  know  that  the 
Australian  transports  were 
near  the  Cocos  Islands? 

A. — He  says  that  he  did  not;  in  fact, 
was  not  aware  that  they  were  anywhere 


in  the  neighborhood.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  his  raid  on  the  Cocos  might  have 
been  successful,  and  no  message  have 
reached  the  Sydney,  had  he  not  taken 
down  his  fourth  funnel  before  the  eyes  of 
the  islanders.  This,  of  course,  gave  him 
away,  and  resulted  in  the  speedy  de- 
struction of  the  Emden. 

Q.—How  could  the  "Emden"  hold 
out  so  long? 

A. — She  simply  went  out  into  the  Indian 
Ocean,  and  carefully  steamed  away  when- 
ever she  saw  smoke  on  the  horizon.  She 
had  plenty  of  coal  from  ships  she  cap- 
tured, and  during  the  whole  of  her  pere- 
grinations she  seldom  steamed  faster  than 
twelve  knots.  She  had  an  exceptionally 
large  crew,  having  on  board  the  men  from 
a  couple  of  gunboats  left  at  Kiauchau. 
Thus  prize  crews  could  be  sent  off  when- 
ever necessary. 

Q. — Which  was  the  greatest  naval 
disaster  of  the  war? 

A. — The  most  serious  naval  disaster 
that  has  been  reported  was  the  sinking 
of  the  French  cruiser  Provence,  which 
was  torpedoed  on  February  26,  1917.  It 
had  on  board  nearly  4,000  men,  and  of 
these  3,130  were  drowned.  The  Provence 
was  a  converted  liner  used  as  a  transport, 
and  carried  eleven  guns.  No  submarine 
was  seen.  There  never  has  been  such  loss 
of  life  when  a  single  ship  went  down  be- 
fore. When  the  Lusitania  was  torpedoed 
1,198  lives  were  lost;  when  the  Titanic 
sank  1,595  people  were  drowned. 

Q. — Was  there  a  great  sea  fight  in 
the  North  Sea,  in  August, 
1914? 

A. — No.  This  fight  was  officially  re- 
ported in  India,  but  was  subsequently  con- 
tradicted. The  rumor  once  started,  how- 
ever, has  gone  on,  and  constant  reference 
is  made  to  the  alleged  action  in  the  neu- 
tral press.  A  circumstantial  report  was 
made  in  1916  about  an  engagement  off  the 
Norwegian  coast,  but  this,  too,  had  no 
foundation  in  fact. 

Q. — Why  were  the  German  cruis- 
ers "Goeben"  and  "Breslau" 
so  famous? 

A. — Because  of  their  very  wonderful 
escape  from  the  British  and  French  navies 
in  the  Mediterranean.  This  escape  has 
been  characterized  by  the  experts  of  all 
nations  as  having  been  one  of  the  most 
brilliant  naval  tactics  on  record. 


134 


Questions  and  Answers 


Hopelessly  outnumbered,  practically 
surrounded,  unable  to  seek  any  port  with- 
out being  blockaded  or  interned,  the  cap- 
tains of  the  two  ships  steered  boldly  out 
of  the  Adriatic  into  the  Mediterranean, 
made  feints  at  attacking  enemy  territory 
on  the  African  coast,  "jammed"  the  wire- 
less of  the  British  and  French  ships,  and 
succeeded  in  running  the  cordon  and  en- 
tering the  Dardanelles. 

After  that  they  played  a  part  in  big 
international  history  because  their  pres- 
ence apparently  had  much  to  do  with  de- 
ciding Turkey's  action  in  joining  the  war. 

Q. — Was  Turkey  an  ally  of  the 
Central  Powers? 

A. — No.  Turkey  was  not  then  in  the 
war,  and  occupied  the  position  of  a  neu- 
tral nation. 

Q. — What  right  did  Turkey  have 
to  give  them  asylum? 

A. — None.  Under  international  law 
Turkey's  duty  was  to  order  them  out  of 
her  ports  after  a  reasonable  time  for  re- 
pairs, or  else  to  intern  them. 

Q. — Why  did  Turkey  not  do  this? 

A. — It  was  very  clear  to  the  whole 
world,  and,  of  course,  to  Turkey,  that 
sooner  or  later  she  would  be  forced  out 
of  her  neutrality.  Apart  from  many  other 
reasons  that  could  be  conjectured  in  ad- 
vance, there  was  sure  to  be  the  demand 
by  Russia  and  Great  Britain  for  passage 
of  warships  through  the  Dardanelles. 
Whether  she  refused  or  acceded,  she  was 
certain  to  be  forced  into  the  war.  In 
this  crisis,  the  accession  to  her  naval  force 
of  two  such  excellent  ships  was  something 
that  had  a  great  deal  of  weight,  and  may 
have  hastened  her  decision. 

Q. — Did  Turkey's  protection  of  the 
ships  furnish  the  actual  casus 
belli? 

A — No.  Turkey  responded  to  Great 
Britain's  protest  by  promising  to  intern 
the  ships  and  put  them  out  of  commis- 
sion. After  a  while,  she  announced  sud- 
denly that  she  had  bought  them  and  in- 
corporated them  in  the  Turkish  Navy. 

Q. — Was  this  legitimate  under  in- 
ternational law? 

A. — It  was  a  point  that  opened  intricate 
question.  The  Allied  governments,  and 


everybody  else,  knew  very  well  that  the 
sale  was  only  a  pretended  one.  But  there 
was  a  big  difference  between  knowing  it 
and  proving  it.  Therefore,  a  Declaration 
of  War  against  Turkey  based  merely  on 
this  episode  was  not  considered  advisable. 

Q. — Did     the     Turks     retain     the 
names  of  the  cruisers? 

A. — They  went  through  all  the  correct 
forms,  apparently,  of  placing  them  into 
the  Turkish  service.  The  Breslau  was  re- 
named Midullu  and  the  Goeben  was  re- 
named Sultan  Yawus  Selim. 

Q. — Did  the  two  ships  play  much 
part  in  fighting? 

A. — In  some  measure  they  may  be  said 
to  have  brought  on  the  entrance  of  Tur- 
key into  the  war  by  their  activities  in  the 
Black  Sea.  According  to  Russia,  they 
opened  fire  on  Russian  ships.  According 
to  Turkey,  they  were  fired  on.  At  any 
rate,  on  November  3,  1914,  Russia  de- 
clared war  on  Turkey.  This  was  followed 
on  November  5  by  French  and  British 
declarations  of  war. 

Q. — Were    the    two    cruisers    not 
sunk  soon  afterward? 

A. — They  were — in  the  news  dispatches. 
They  were  sunk  with  great  frequency. 
During  quite  a  period  the  cables  brought 
accounts  every  few  days  of  their  total 
destruction. 

Q.— What  was  the  truth? 

A.— The  truth  was  that  they  acted  with 
varying  success  in  the  Black  Sea.  They 
were  unable  to  do  anything  decisive,  but 
they  managed  to  remain  in  action,  to 
harass  the  Russian  coasts  and  Black  Sea 
marine,  and  to  escape  the  heavy  Russian 
battleships. 

Q. — Were  they  of  use  during  the 
attack  on  the  Dardanelles? 

A. — Very  little,  except  strategically. 
They  did  not  play  much  part  in  the  de- 
fense, so  far  as  gunfire  or  actual  opera- 
tions went.  But  they  were  of  great  use 
in  helping  to  guard  Turkey's  back-door — 
the  Black  Sea. 

Q. — Were  they  of  any  service  after 
the  Dardanelles  campaign? 

A. — They  harried  the  Russian  transport 
service  continually  and  also  kept  the  Rus- 


Sea  Fights  of  the  Great  War 


135 


sian  coast  in  more  or  less  unrest,  their 
last  fairly  important  service  being  the 
sinking  of  many  small  Russian  war-craft 
and  merchant  ships  and  the  bombardment 
of  Russian  coast  in  June,  1917.  After  that 
they  were  not  heard  from  much,  until 
January  20,  1918,  when  there  was  a  sud- 
den action  outside  of  the  Dardanelles, 
which  ended  in  the  sinking  of  the  Midullu 
(Breslau)  and  of  two  British  monitors, 
while  the  Sultan  Yawns  Selim  (Goeben) 
stranded,  but  finally  got  back  into  the 
Dardanelles,  badly  crippled  without 
doubt.  The  commander  of  one  of  the 
British  monitors  was  Viscount  Broome, 
nephew  of  Earl  Kitchener.  He  was 
drowned. 


Q. — Did    Austrians    and    Italians 
ever  fight  at  sea  before? 

A. — Yes.  They  kad  one  of  the  very 
great  sea  fights  of  history.  It  was  in 
1866.  On  July  20th  of  that  year,  the  Aus- 
trian fleet,  under  Admiral  Tegetthoff,  en- 
gaged the  Italian  fleet,  under  Admiral 
Pessano,  in  the  Bay  of  Lissa,  and  though 
the  Italian  fleet  fought  heroically  the  Aus- 
trians were  so  brilliantly  handled  that 
they  succeeded  in  completely  destroying 
the  Italian  fleet.  Tegetthoff's  exploit  has 
caused  many  comparisons  to  be  made  be- 
tween him  and  Farragut,  because  their 
swiftness  of  decision  and  the  dashing 
character  of  their  strategy  were  much 
alike. 


STRATEGY  OF  THE  WAR 

Military  and  Political 


Q._What  was  the  first  act  of  bel- 
ligerency that  affected  outside 
nations  directly? 

A. — The  immediate  severance  of  all 
methods  of  communication  with  Ger- 
many. By  cutting  cables-  the  Allies  at 
once  made  such  countries  as  the  United 
States  excellent  bases  of  activity  for 
themselves  and  precarious  bases  for  their 
enemies. 

Q. — Was  this  fair  play? 

A. — There  is  no  "fair  play"  in  war  ex- 
cept such  as  individual  temperament  leads 
individual  men  to  observe.  Fair  play 
toward  a  nation's  enemy  might  be  "foul 
play"  toward  one's  own  nation. 

Q. — What  were  the  specific  advan- 
tages of  cutting  communica- 
tions ? 

A. — The  German  naval  vessels  scat- 
tered throughout  the  world  were  instantly 
hampered  because  the  German  Admiralty 
could  not  communicate  with  them,  or,  at 
least,  could  do  so  only  laboriously.  The 
German  Government  was  cut  off  from 
its  African  colonies,  where  its  soldiers 
thereafter  had  to  fight  on  their  own  in- 
itiative without  any  assistance.  The 
entire  American  continent  became  sealed 
to  them,  and,  naturally,  since  the  war  was 
the  absorbing  subject  of  the  world,  the 
entire  continent  gladly  received  all  that 
the  cables  from  the  Allied  countries  could 
carry  about  the  causes  of  the  war  and  its 
aspects. 

Q. — What  could  the  belligerents 
gain  in  neutral  countries  by 
making  sentiment? 

A. — They  could  hope  to  bring  some 
neutral  countries  into  the  war  on  their 
side.  They  could  hope  to  prevent  some 
neutral  countries  from  abandoning  a  use- 
ful neutrality.  Even  in  countries  which 
they  could  not  hope  to  win  as  fellow- 
belligerents,  or  which  they  did  not  need 
to  fear  as  possible  allies  of  their  enemies, 
they  could  hope  to  make  such  sentiment 
that  the  neutrality  would  be  distinctly  in 
their  favor. 


Q. — Did  either  side  wish  to  bring 
the  United  States  into  the  war? 

A. — No.  Germany  could  not  hope  to,  if 
she  wished.  The  Allies  could  gain  far 
more,  as  they  frankly  said,  by  American 
productiveness  in  food  and  munitions 
than  by  belligerent  assistance. 

Q. — What  was  the  effort  of  rival 
activity  in  Italy? 

A. — Both  Austria-Hungary  and  Ger- 
many recognized  early  that  they  need  not 
hope  for  Italy  as  an  ally.  Thereafter 
they  worked  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
keeping  her  neutral.  The  Allies,  on  the 
other  hand,  worked  to  gain  Italy's  active 
military  aid.  The  immediate  value  of  this 
was  that  she  could  attack  Austria-Hun- 
gary in  the  west  while  Russia  attacked 
her  in  the  east. 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  want  to  keep 
Turkey  neutral  also? 

A. — No.  Both  sides  wanted  Turkey  to 
enter  the  war.  The  Germans  succeeded 
in  getting  her  to  do  so  on  their  side.  It 
appears  as  if  this  must  have  been  a  fore- 
gone conclusion  from  the  beginning,  but 
for  a  time  there  was  some  reason  to  hope 
that  she  would  enter  on  the  Allied  side, 
mainly  for  the  reason  that  the  cause  of 
the  Central  Powers  seemed  hopeless. 

Q. — Why  was  Turkey  considered 
so  important? 

A. — Mostly  because  she  held  the  Darda- 
nelles. Had  she  joined  the  Allies,  they 
would  have  been  able  to  form  a  united 
line  with  the  Russian  armies,  and  there 
is  hardly  a  doubt  that  this  one  blow 
would  have  forced  the  Balkan  States  to 
make  common  cause  with  them  or  at  the 
least  permit  free  use  of  their  territory. 
In  that  case,  Austria-Hungary  would 
have  been  invaded  positively  and  forced 
out  of  the  war. 

Q. — Would  not  Turkish  neutral- 
ity have  served  the  Germans 
by  keeping  the  Dardanelles 
closed? 

A. — It  would.  But  continued  neutrality 
would  have  been  absolutely  impossible  for 


136 


Strategy  of  the  War — Military  and  Political 


137 


the  Turks,  Sooner  or  later  they  would 
have  been  forced  into  the  war.  There- 
fore the  German  policy  was  to  get  her 
aid  as  an  ally  without  taking  a  chance. 

Q. — Were  the  Dardanelles  the 
great  early  strategic  prize? 

A. — There  were  two  waterways  whose 
absolute  and  undisturbed  control  was  ab- 
solutely vital  for  immediate  war-purposes. 
They  were  the  British  Channel  and  the 
Dardanelles. 

Q. — Could  the  Germans  hope  to 
contest  control  of  the  channel 
against  the  British  fleet? 

A. — They  could.  They  could  not  hope 
to  contest  it  with  their  battleships,  but 
they  could  hope  to  do  so  by  capturing 
the  entire  Belgian  coast  and  the  French 
coast  at  least  as  far  as  Calais.  Had  they 
succeeded,  they  might  have  made  trans- 
portation of  troops  and  supplies  to  France 
from  England  exceedingly  difficult  by 
using  heavy  artillery  from  coast  fortifica- 
tions, by  greatly  expanding  their  subma- 
rine bases  and  having  them  close  to  the 
British  transport  lines,  and  by  making 
serious  threats  by  land  against  Havre,  the 
port  at  the  mouth  of  the  Seine. 

Q. — What  were  other  important 
points  in  the  beginning? 

A. — The  control  of  the  North  Sea  and 
the  Baltic  Sea,  the  Kiel  Canal,  and  the 
Austrian  naval  bases  of  Trieste  and  Pola 
on  the  Adriatic. 

Q. — Did  either  belligerent  gain  a 
decisive  advantage  in  these? 

A. — The  British  gained  an  almost  de- 
cisive preponderance  of  control  in  the 
North  Sea.  The  Germans  succeeded  in 
holding  the  Baltic  almost  at  their  will. 
The  Kiel  Canal  and  the  Austrian  naval 
bases  proved  practically  invulnerable. 

Q. — Just  what  was  the  value  to 
Germany  of  the  Kiel  Canal? 

A) — It  meant  that  while  the  British 
might  control  the  North  Sea,  they  could 
not  completely  rob  the  German  Navy  of 
freedom  of  movement.  The  best  way 
to  understand  its  value  is  to  understand 
that  the  German  North  Sea  coast  and 
the  German  Baltic  coast  are  separated 
from  each  other  by  a  mighty  tongue  of 
land  that  projects  northward  until  it  al- 
most touches  Sweden.  This  is  the  pro- 
jection on  which  Denmark  is.  Thus  the 


natural  geography  made  it  very  difficult 
for  naval  ships  to  pass  between  the  Baltic 
and  the  North  Sea.  Enemy  ships  might 
easily  have  cut  them  off  in  the  narrow 
passage  between  Denmark  and  Sweden 
(the  Cattegat)  or  between  Denmark  and 
Norway  (the  Skager  Rack).  Or,  part  of 
the  German  fleet  might  be  blockaded  in 
a  North  Sea  port  (the  mouth  of  the 
Weser  or  the  Elbe)  and  another  part 
might  be  blocked  within  the  Baltic,  and 
thus  the  two  fleets  rendered  permanently 
too  weak  for  action. 

Q. — How  did  the  Kiel  Canal  solve 
this  problem? 

A. — The  Kiel  Canal  cuts  straight  across 
the  base  of  the  great  projection  of  land. 
In  effect,  it  has  straightened  out  the  coast 
line  for  naval  purposes,  and  made  one 
coast  of  the  North  Sea  and  the  Baltic 
coasts. 

Q.— What  makes  the  Kiel  Canal 
apparently  invulnerable? 

A. — Immense  fortifications  on  land, 
commanding  all  approaches.  Difficult 
coast  lines,  forcing  exceedingly  cautious, 
and  therefore  slow,  maneuvering  by 
enemy  ships.  Also  the  outlying  island  of 
Heligoland,  which  is  actually  one  enor- 
mous fortification,  armed  with  every  of- 
fensive and  defensive  device  of  modern 
warfare,  and  lying  broad  in  the  way  of 
ships  that  seek  to  approach  the  North 
Sea  mouth  of  the  Kiel  Canal. 

Q. — When  did  Germany  acquire 
Heligoland? 

A. — In  1890,  under  the  Caprivi  agree- 
ment, Lord  Salisbury  traded  Heligoland 
to  Germany  in  return  for  Zanzibar. 
There  was,  of  course,  at  that  time  no 
thought  of  Germany's  sea  rivalry,  and  the 
island  of  Heligoland  seemed  of  little  im- 
portance to  England.  It  was  a  mistake, 
however,  as  the  Germans  built  up  the 
hollow  coast,  turning  the  ^island  into  a 
strong  naval  fort  and  making  it  a  front 
and  screen  for  the  German  fleet,  from 
behind  which  they  can  assemble  and 
make  surprise  attacks  in  the  North  Sea. 

Q. — Could  you  give  a  succinct  pic- 
ture of  the  war  by  stating  the 
changing  aspects  year  by  year? 
What,  for  instance,  were  the 
really  big  military  objectives  in 
1914? 

A. — In  the  west,  German  attempt  to 
pierce  toward  Paris  and  thus  to  cut 


138 


Questions  and  Answers 


French  armies  from  British.  Unsuccess- 
ful. German  attempt  to  drive  along 
northern  coast  to  Calais.  Unsuccessful. 
In  the  East,  Russian  attempt  to  over- 
run Galicia.  Successful.  Russian  at- 
tempt to  invade  Germany.  Unsuccessful. 

Q. — What  were  the  political  war 
aims  in  1914? 

A. — Allied  efforts  to  bring  Turkey,  the 
Balkan  States  and  Italy  into  the  war. 
Unsuccessful.  German  attempts  to  gain 
Turkey  as  an  ally.  Successful. 

Q. — What  were  the  great  military 
objectives  in  1915? 

A. — In  the  West,  German  attempt  to 
establish  a  general  defensive.  Success- 
ful. 

In  the  East,  Russian  attempt  to  invade 
Hungary.  Unsuccessful.  German  at- 
tempt to  occupy  Russian  Poland.  Suc- 
cessful. Austro-German  and  Bulgarian 
attempt  to  conquer  Serbia.  Successful. 
French  and  British  attempt  to  take  Dar- 
danelles. Unsuccessful. 

Q. — What  were  the  political  aims 
in  1915? 

A. — German  attempt  to  bring  Bulgaria 
in  as  an  ally.  Successful.  Allied  at- 
tempts to  bring  Roumania  and  Greece  in 
on  their  side.  Unsuccessful.  Allied 
effort  to  win  Italy.  Successful. 

Q. — What  were  the  vital  military 
objectives  in  1916? 

A. — In  the  West,  German  attempts  to 
resume  the  offensive  (Verdun).  Un- 
successful. 

In  the  East,  Russian  attempt  to  over- 
run Bukowina.  Successful.  German  and 
Austrian  attempt  to  conquer  Roumania. 
Successful.  British  attempt  to  capture 
Bagdad.  Unsuccessful. 

In  the  South,  Austrian  attempt  to  in- 
vade Italy  through  Trentino.  Partly  suc- 
cessful. Italian  attempt  to  break  Isonzo 
line.  Partly  successful. 

Q. — What  were  the  political  aims 

of  1916? 

A. — Allied  attempt  to  win  Roumania  to 
their  side.  Successful.  German  attempt 
to  induce  enemies  to  meet  in  peace  con- 
ference. Unsuccessful. 

Q. — What  were  the  big  military  ob- 
jectives in  1917? 

A. — In  the  West,  the  French  and  Brit- 
ish attempt  to  force  grand  retirement  of 
Germans.  Unsuccessful. 


In  the  East,  German  drive  along  Rus- 
sian Baltic  coast  to  Riga  and  beyond. 
Successful.  British  attempt  to  capture 
Bagdad  (with  new  army).  Successful. 
British  attempt  to  conquer  Palestine. 
Successful. 

In  the  South,  Germans  and  Austro- 
Hungarians  attempt  to  break  Isonzo  line 
and  invade  northern  Italy.  Successful. 

Q. — What  were  the  political  aims 
of  1917? 

A. — To  keep  the  revolutionary  govern- 
ment of  Russia  in  line  with  Allied  mili- 
tary and  political  aims.  Unsuccessful. 
To  bring  Greece  into  the  war  on  the  side 
of  the  Allies.  Successful. 

Q. — Why  cannot  a  landing  be  ef- 
fected on  Germany  between 
Holland  and  Denmark? 

A.— Heligoland  defends  the  Bight.  The 
sea  is  shallow  there,  and  the  channels  are 
difficult.  The  Frisian  Islands  are  strongly 
fortified,  and  all  approaches  are  protected 
with  the  latest  appliances  for  harbor  pro- 
tection, sunken  torpedoes  and  other  de- 
fenses. For  transports  to  enter  that  re- 
gion would  be  to  invite  destruction. 

Q. — How  could  armies  or  spies  de- 
stroy great  stores  of  grain? 

A. — Great  stocks  of  wheat  can  of  course 
be  fired,  but  they  burn  very  slowly  in- 
deed. Petroleum  assists  the  fire,  but  it 
fails  to  get  far  into  the  stacks.  Blow- 
ing up  the  grain  does  not  get  rid  of  it, 
and  there  is  seldom  time  for  a  retreat- 
ing army  to  stop  and  load  the  wheat  on 
to  trucks,  even  if  these  were  available 
to  take  it  away.  It  is  difficult  to  ruin  it 
with  water,  because  the  water  does  not 
penetrate  far  enough.  When  the  Aus- 
trians  abandoned  Lemberg  to  the  Rus- 
sians early  in  the  war,  they  attempted  to 
destroy  the  huge  stores  of  wheat  they 
had  in  the  city,  but  the  Russians  found 
the  wheat  practically  undamaged,  although 
the  sheltering  roofs  and  wooden  walls  of 
granaries,  etc.,  had  been  entirely  burned 
away. 

Q.— What  were  the  largest  battles 
in  the  Roumanian  campaign? 

A. — The  most  momentous  was  fought 
at  Targujiu  on  _  November  15  and  18, 
1915,  wheti  the  invading  Teutons  broke 
the  Roumanian  resistance  in  Western 
Wallachia.  The  other  decisive  battle  was 
fought  just  a  few  miles  west  of  Bucha- 
rest on  December  I,  2  and  3.  In  this 


Strategy  of  the  War — Military  and  Political 


139 


fight  the  Roumanian  army  was  completely 
crushed.  The  battle  in  which  the  Bul- 
garians and  Turks  repulsed  the  Russian 
General  Shakaroff  on  December  2  was 
also  important,  in  the  effect  it  had  on  the 
campaign  generally. 

Q. — What  is  approximately  the 
total  area  of  conquered  land 
held  by  the  enemy? 

A. — Owing  to  the  British  and  French 
successes,  the  area  held  in  France  was  a 
constantly  decreasing  quantity  during 
1917.  Still  the  Germans  appeared  in  the 
beginning  of  1918,  to  be  in  occupation  of 
at  least  179,400  square  miles  of  Allied 
territory : 

Belgium  11,000  square  miles 

Poland   49,000 

Courland  10,400 

Kovna    15,500 

Grodno  14,900 

Vilna    8,000 

Volhynia  and  Mynsk  8,000 

Northern  Albania  . .  6,000 

Montenegro    5,6oo 

Wallachia   and   Dob 

rudja  43,ooo 

Northern  France    . .  8,000 

The  Allies  held  a  small  portion  of 
Alsace,  and  a  narrow  strip  of  Austrian 
territory  on  the  Izonso,  not  equal  to  the 
area  that  the  Germans  had  in  Montenegro 
and  Albania.  Outside  of  Europe,  how- 
ever, the  Allies  had  acquired  all  the  Ger- 
man colonies. 

Q. — What  was  the  object  of  Grand 
Duke  Nicholas  in  destroying 
villages  and  forcing  the  peo- 
ple to  leave  their  homes  and 
go  into  Russia  when  he  evac- 
uated Poland  and  the  other 
provinces  ? 

A. — The  theory  apparently  was  to  re- 
peat the  successful  methods  employed  by 
the  Russians  during  the  Napoleonic  in- 
vasion of  1812 — that  is,  to  clear  the  coun- 
try before  the  advancing  enemy,  so  that 
he  should  find  neither  shelter  nor  pro- 
visions anywhere. 

Many  critics  hold  that  the  military  gain 
was  very  slight  indeed,  and  that  the  eco- 
nomic problem  thrust  upon  Russia  by  the 
sudden  and  unexpected  arrival  of  some 
13,000,000  destitute  refugees  was  so  great 
that  it  would  have  proved  far  wiser  not 
to  have  destroyed  this  multitude's  homes, 
but  to  have  left  them  behind  when  his 
army  retired. 


Q. — What  became  of  these  people 
who  escaped  when  the  Ger- 
mans took  these  provinces? 

A.— "Escaped"  is  hardly  the  right  word. 
The  invaders,  repairing  the  railway  lines 
as  they  came,  felt  the  devastation  far  less 
than  the  wretched  inhabitants  forced  to 
flee  at  a  few  hours'  notice  along  the 
thronged  roads  towards  Russia.  It  is  said 
that  some  10,000,000  men,  women  and 
children  were  thus  driven  off  by  the 
Russian  soldiers,  and  that  at  least 
2,000,000  of  them  died  on  the  roadside. 
These  figures  may  be  too  large,  but  it  ap- 
pears certain  that  more  than  a  million 
perished,  and  only  some  3,000,000  ulti- 
mately reached  Petrograd  and  Moscow 
of  the  ten  or  more  millions  who  set  out 
for  those  cities. 

Q. — What  is  the  greatest  mine  ex- 
ploit in  history? 

A. — At  the  battle  of  Messines  Ridge,  on 
July  7,  1917,  the  British  exploded  simul- 
taneously nineteen  mines,  containing  some- 
thing like  five  hundred  tons  of  high  ex- 
plosive, under  the  German  position.  The 
British  engineers  had  been  driving  tun- 
nels beneath  the  hills  held  by  the  op- 
posing forces  for  an  entire  year.  There 
was  an  unprecedentedly  intense  prelimi- 
nary bombardment  in  which  a  single 
British  division  fired  226,000  shells,  the 
cannonade  being  heard  in  English  towns 
130  miles  away.  The  mine  was  touched 
at  3:10  A.  M.  Practically  the  entire 
range  was  thrown  into  the  air  as  by  a 
volcano,  the  heavy  concrete  emplace- 
ments and  deep  dug-outs  of  the  Germans 
spouting  up  in  small  fragments.  Some 
of  the  enemy  troops  survived  the  hor- 
ror, but  were  so  dazed  that  the  British 
charge  took  the  entire  ridge  with  but 
little  resistance. 

Q.— Did  the  term  "Allies"  include 
all  the  nations  that  entered  the 
war  against  the  Central  Pow- 
ers? 

A.— Technically,  the  only  "Allies"  were 
France,  Russia  and  Great  Britain,  who 
signed  the  pact  of  London,  September  5, 
1917,  binding  themselves  not  to  make 
separate  peace. 

Q. — Did  not  other  nations  join  as 
Allies? 

A. — Japan,  although  entering  the  war 
against  Germany  as  a  treaty-ally  of  Great 


140  Questions  and  Answers 

Britain  as   soon   as   it  began,  signed  the  Q. — The  United  States  is  often  re- 
separate     peace    pact     some    time    later  ferred  to  as  an  Ally       Is  that 
Italy  signed   the   pact   when   she  entered  .., 
the  war.     Since  then  most  of  the  smaller 

nations  that  entered  the  war  from  time  A. — It  is  incorrect.     The  United  States 

to  time  became  signatories  to  the  peace  wages  war  in  conjunction  with  the  Allies, 

pact,  and  they  have  all  been  known  as  but  adheres  to  its  own  political  principles 

Allies.  and  aims. 


FOREIGN  NAVIES 


Q. — Who  spent  the  most  on  navies 
before  the  war? 

A. — Great  Britain  spent  about  $245,000.- 
ooo  on  her  naval  establishment  in  1913- 
1914.  Russia  was  second  with  about 
$130,000,000.  Third  place  was  held  by 
France  with  $125,000,000.  Germany  came 
fourth  with  $115,000,000,  and  Austria 
spent  $37,500,000.  Thus  the  comparative 
pre-war  expenditures  of  the  big  opposing 
forces  were:  Allies  $500,000,000  (about), 
Central  Powers  $152,500,000  (about). 

Q.— What  are  "Hush  Hush"  ships? 

A. — They  are  a  new  type  of  very  heav- 
ily armed  and  armored  British  ships, 
built  in  a  novel  way,  very  long  and  very 
low,  with  a  squat  central  superstructure 
flanked  by  turrets  or  barbettes  that  hold 
two  extremely  powerful  guns.  The  speed 
is  said  to  be  as  high  as  that  of  battle- 
cruisers,  and  it  is  reported  that  the  guns 
throw  a  i,9OO-potmd  shell.  While  the  only 
information  about  them  has  come  through 
chance  references,  experts  assume  that 
they  are  outgrowths  of  the  modern  battle- 
cruiser  principle. 

Q. — What  were  the  German  naval 
losses  during  the  whole  war? 

A. — The  list  given  in  the  Proceedings 
of  the  U.  S.  Naval  Institute,  January, 
1918,  is :  i  battleship,  i  battle-cruiser,  6 
armored  cruisers,  II  protected  cruisers,  9 
light  cruisers,  n  gunboats,  36  destroyers 
and  torpedo-boats,  24  auxiliary  cruisers, 
6  small  vessels  (mine  layers,  etc.),  or 
105  vessels  in  all,  not  counting  subma- 
rines. The  list  gives  55  submarines,  the 
destruction  of  most  of  which  appears 
definitely  established,  and  it  is  undoubted 
that  more  have  been  destroyed. 

Q. — How  many  Allied  warships 
does  Germany  claim  to  have 
sunk? 

A. — With  the  sinking  of  the  French 
armored  cruiser  Chateaurenault  Germany 
claimed  that  300  different  warships,  with 
a  total  tonnage  of  1,000,000  tons,  belong- 
ing to  the  Entente  Allies  have  been  lost 
since  the  beginning  of  the  war.  Auxiliary 
cruisers  to  the  number  of  51,  with  a  ton- 
nage of  358,000,  and  other  ships  comman- 
deered for  war  purposes  numbering  38, 
with  a  registered  tonnage  of  146,000, 


which  have  been  sunk,  are  not  included  in 
the  above  total. 

The  losses  of  the  300  warships  are  di- 
vided as  follows,  according  to  the  Ger- 
man figures: 

Ships.  Tons. 

England  177  688,390 

France   48  109,000 

Russia    36  91,540 

Italy 25  76,450 

Japan    8  26,875 

United  States,  Portugal, 

Roumania 6  8,551 

Thus  the  warship  losses  of  the  Entente 
would  about  equal  the  size  of  the  German 
fleet  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  which 
was  1,019,417  tons. 

Q. — What   was   the   total  loss   of 
British  warships? 

1914- 

1915.  1916.  1917.  Total 

Gunfire   3  16  4  23 

Submarined    12  3  10  25 

Topedoed   by    sur- 
face ships    i  i  2  4 

Mined    6  5  9  20 

Collision    4  4  8 

Internal  Explo 3  . .  i  4 

Foundered     and 

stranded 5  . .  . .  5 


Total 


30        29        30        89 


Add  3  destroyers,  the  actual  cause  of 
whose  loss — either  mine  or  submarine — 
is  uncertain.  This  estimate  is  made  by 
one  writer  on  naval  topics. 

A  list  printed  in  the  United  States 
Naval  Institute  Proceedings  for  January, 
1918,  gives  as  the  British  naval  losses : 
2  dreadnaughts,  12  battleships,  13  armored 
cruisers,  10  light  cruisers,  44  destroyers 
and  torpedo-boats,  15  auxiliary  cruisers, 
8  transports,  and  about  20  small  vessels 
(coast  guard,  etc.),  making  124  in  all, 
with  14  submarines  in  addition. 

Q. — What  naval  strength  have  the 
neutrals  ? 

A. — Switzerland,  of  course,  has  no 
ships.  Holland  proposed  recently  to  build 
nine  dreadnaughts,  but  she  had  only  nine 
coast  defense  battleships  in  1917,  some 
cruisers,  and  forty  torpedo-boats ;  also 
six  submarines,  mostly  old.  Norway, 
likewise,  intended  to  build  eight  great 


141 


142 


Questions  and  Answers 


battleships,  but  relied  actually  on  a  few 
gunboats  and  37  torpedo-boats.  Sweden 
had  a  dozen  coast  defense  vessels,  53 
torpedo  destroyers,  and  three  submarines, 
but  during  the  war  added  a  swift  cruiser 
of  7,000  tons  to  her  fleet.  The  Spanish 
navy  consisted  of  three  small  dread- 
naughts  of  15,400  tons,  and  half  a  dozen 
old  cruisers,  but  an  ambitious  building 
program  was  begun  after  the  war 
started. 

Q. — Is  there  great  difference  be- 
tween British  battle  cruisers 
and  armored  cruisers? 

A. — Yes,  in  size  and  speed,  but  espe- 
cially in  gun  power.  The  latest  of  the 
British  armored  cruisers,  the  Defence,  was 
14,600  tons,  had  a  speed  of  23  knots,  and 
mounted  four  g.2-inch  and  ten  7.5-inch 
guns.  The  German  Scharnhorst  and 
Gneisenau  were  of  this  type,  but  smaller, 
11,400  tons,  and  eight  8.2-inch  guns.  The 
Australia,  one  of  the  smaller  battle- 
cruisers,  displaced  18,800  tons,  and  had  a 
designed  speed  of  25  knots,  which  has 
been  considerably  exceeded.  She  carried 
eight  12-inch  guns,  and  much  heavier 
armor  than  the  Defence. 

Q. — Is  the  British  super-dread- 
naught  much  heavier  than 
dreadnaughts  ? 

A. — Yes,  very  much  so.  The  differ- 
ence between  the  two  types  is  in  fact 
greater  than  between  the  most  recent  pre- 
dreadnaughts  and  a  dreadnaught.  The 
first  all-big-gun  ship  was  the  British 
Dreadnought,  which  has  given  the  name 
to  this  class  of  battleship.  Admiral 
Fisher  was  responsible  for  her,  and  the 
experience  of  the  Russo-Japanese  war 
was  the  direct  cause  of  her  building. 
The  naval  battles  in  that  war  proved  that 
a  heavily  armored  ship,  with  big  guns,  was 
the  ship  of  the  future.  The  heavily  pro- 
tected Russian  Czarevitch  survived  the 
smashing  gunfire  of  the  Japanese  fleet, 
and  was  the  only  Russian  ship  to  escape, 
those  less  well  armored  being  sunk.  The 
Dreadnought  was  17,000  tons,  was  en- 
gined  with  turbines  of  23,000  horsepower, 
which  developed  a  speed  of  21  knots ;  she 
had  ten  12-inch  guns.  The  Lord  Nelson, 
the  last  of  the  pre-dreadnaughts,  was 
16,500  tons,  18  knots,  had  thinner  armor, 
and  only  four  12-inch  guns,  but  carried 
also  ten  g.2-inchers.  The  difference  be- 
tween the  two  was  not  very  great. 

The  British  call  this  type  "dread- 
nought." The  American  custom  is 
"dreadnaught" 


Q. — Why    have    British    warships 
not  operated  in  the  Baltic? 

A.— Because  the  entrance  to  the  Baltic 
is  a  "bottle-neck"  passage.  The  British 
fleet  would  have  to  force  this  very  narrow 
entrance  between  Denmark  and  Sweden  at 
immense  risk,  for  the  narrowest  part  of 
this  strait  (the  Cattegat)  u  to  tight  that 
it  is  only  a  ferry-trip  from  Copenhagen 
in  Denmark  to  Swedish  Elsinore  or 
Malmo. 

Since  it  would  be  quite  impossible  for 
the  British  fleet  to  advance  through  such 
a  waterway  in  battle-formation,  the  Ger- 
man fleet  in  the  Baltic  could  practically 
select  its  own  way  of  defense  and  attack. 

Q. — Is  this  all  that  keeps   British 
ships  out? 

A. — Furthermore,  the  German  ships 
could  pour  out  of  the  Kiel  Canal  into  the 
North  Sea,  steam  northward  and  close  the 
Cattegat  from  outside  after  the  British 
fleet  had  entered,  thus  locking  it  up.  This 
would  mean  that  a  foray  into  the  Baltic 
might,  even  if  successful  against  German 
forces  in  the  Baltic,  end  in  the  total  loss 
of  the  British  ships. 

Apart  from  these  two  decisive  factors, 
a  major  naval  operation  in  the  Baltic  is 
practically  prohibited  by  the  shoal  nature 
of  that  sea  and  its  extremely  intricate  and 
dangerous  channels.  Fighting  at  the  ter- 
rific speed  of  a  modern  naval  engagement, 
the  dreadnaughts  would  almost  inevitably 
run  aground  sooner  or  later. 

Q. — How  large  a  fleet  had  the  Rus- 
sians in  the  Baltic? 

A. — Before  the  war  began  the  Russian 
fleet  in  the  Baltic  consisted  of  four  dread- 
naughts,  which  had  just  been  completed. 
They  were  all  23,000  tons,  and  carried  12- 
inch  guns.  There  were  in  addition  four 
pre-dreadnaught  battleships.  The  oldest 
of  these,  the  Czarevitch,  was  the  largest 
ship  the  Russians  possessed  when  they 
fought  Japan  in  1903.  There  were  also 
six  armored  cruisers,  one  of  which,  the 
Pallada,  was  sunk. 

Q. — Which   ships   did   Japan   give 
back  to  Russia? 

A. — The  ships  "retroceded"  to  Russia 
were  the  battleships  Sagami  (cx-Peres- 
viet)  and  Tango  (ex-Poltava^,  and  the 
cruiser  Soya  (ex-Varyag).  These  were 
all  captured  in  the  war  of  1904-5. 

Q. — Has  Greece  any  fleet? 

A. — During  the  Balkan  wars  the  Greek 
fleet  dominated  the  /Egean,  owing  to  the 


Foreign  Navies 


143 


fact  that  in  the  Georgics  Avrrcf  the 
Greeks  had  a  more  powerful  ship  than 
anything  Turkey  possessed.  This  ar- 
mored cruiser,  of  9,680  toes,  was  the  gift 
of  die  Grecian  millionaire  Areroff  to  the 
nation.  Had  this  gift  not  beat  made  the 
Balkan  war  might  have 
different 


Q. — Could    the 


taken  a 


Q. — Has     Greece     any     American 
battleships  ? 

A. — Since  that  war  the  Greeks  pur- 
chased  the  two  ij.ooo-toa  hiUVihipn, 
Idaho  and  Mississippi,  from  the  United 
States,  rechristening  them  A'tZKi  and 
Lf-mnos.  They  are  only  17  knots,  hnt  both 
carry  four  u-inch  guns.  They  also  or- 
dered a  battle-cruiser  of  20,000  tons,  Ac 
Salamis,  from  Germany,  as  a  reply  to 
Turkey's  order  for  tw 
placed  in  Great  Britain.  The  , 
acquired  by  Germany,  and 
part  in  the  Jutland  battle 


Q. — What  are  the  largest  British 
naval  guns? 

A — The  15-inch  gnns  of  the  Qufe* 
EKaabftk  and  her  sister  ships  were  the 
largest  known  to  be  in 
ports  hare,  however,  be 
perhaps  b^  Tr.cur.tc  i  cr.  srrr.e  .1  tr.e  -^t;?t 
dreadttanghts.  One  i6-inch  gun  made  at 
:k  on  the  Tyne,  weighs  105  tons, 
and  fires  a  shell  IB  f  njhing  2*200 
almost  exactly  a  ton.  The  Kmpp 
gun  weighs  only  02  tons,  and  fires  a 
2,ojS-pound  shell  Schneider,  the  French 
maker,  has  a  i>7-inch  weapon,  which 
weighs  102  tons,  and  has  a  projectile  of 
- 


two  15-inch 


1  6-inch? 
A,—  fcwould  be 

it  would  be  a  p 

hardly  be  possible  to 

gnns  where  two 

and  if  only  one  of  the  larger 

pi  iced  •hui  two  of  the  smaller 

toe  gam  would  not  he  enough.    The 

hare  to  be  altered  —  renewed,  in  fact. 

Q.  —  Is   the   "Queen   Elizabeth"   a 
superdreadnaught  or  a  battle 


types  were 


A-She 


is  a 


nrmch 

tgfr,    tne    largest    British    ' 
before  the  war,  is  larger, 
tons;  her  engines  of  imvooo  hors 

give  her  thei  i  •  1 1  speed  of  31 

and  she  carries  eight  133  inch 


Q. — How  much  does  a  British  15- 
inch  gun  weigh? 

A.— From  oo  to  95  tons.  To  quote  Mr. 
jton  Churchill:  These  gtms  have 
proved  the  best  we  have  ever  had.  Ac- 
curate at  all  ranges,  and  Liri.ptinniwj 
long  uved.-  No  fewer  than  14  of  the 
new  British  super-dreadnanghts  are  armed 
with  this  weapon.  Its  extreme  range  is 
21  miles,  but,  owing  to  the  curvature  of 
the  earth's  surface,  its  effective  range 
would  be  at  the  most  half  that  Even 
then  the  gunner  would  not  see  the  snip 
he  was  firing  at  which  would  he  below 
the  horizon.  The  gun  would  hare  to  be 
bid  by  the  direction  from  the  •—• — - 
high  up  the  mast! 


Q.  —  Can  naval  guns  be  dismounted 
and  used  in  the  field? 

A.  —  It  is  ponunlf  to  we  gnns  of  com- 
paratively small  cafiber  in  this  way.  as 
by  the  British  during  the  Boer 
me  ago  it  was  stated  defi- 

of  their   li-mch  naval  gnns  among  the 

_f       n^^^J^—  »         «^M|       ^^M^l       lk*.^MWA  •*r4^s4 

oi  r  fancier  &,  ana  nan  Domoarueu 
Dunkirk  therewith.  It  is  far  mote  nkeiy, 
however,  that  they  nsed  army  siege  gnns. 
It  was  decided  in  March.  1918,  to  nse 
some  of  oar  Kg  naral  gnns  on  d>e  French 
inmt»  if  necessary,  pvesmnahiy  hecanse 
the  United  States  naval  gvn  works  had 
c_:  .  "  :_;  ::;;  tjr  rumir.c  -  -t  tr.e 
very 


great 


Q.— How  many  rounds  can  a 
•aval  gun  fire  before 
out? 

A  —Twelve-inch  gvns.  and  those 
laigu  size,  can  fire  oo  full 
After  that  they  are  sent  to  die 

'•hue.  they  have  a  new  < 

ir. ,:  .Tin  rre  i  rurtr.cr   -C  r;u~. _? 

Ai_.         _     m-_  J     frjJt 

t:rr.e  2  «.-"    --J-    ...r_ 

to  be  considered  practically 

the  war  has  vastry  changed 

the  rex:ii~ing  jf  CTcit 


144 


Questions  and  Answers 


In  time  of  peace  the  big  guns  were  nat- 
urally spared  carefully  and  only  a  few  full 
charges  were  fired  in  the  course  of  a  year. 
For  practice,  reduced  charges  were  used, 
or  a  small-caliber  gun  attached  to  the 
big  gun  was  fired. 

Q. — What  weight  projectile  do  big 
guns  fire? 

A. — Twelve-inch  guns  fire  projectiles 
weighing  about  850  pounds;  1 5-inch  guns 
up  to  2,000  pounds. 

A  rough-and-ready  rule  for  calcula- 
tion is :  Cube  the  caliber  of  the  gun  and 
divide  the  result  by  two.  This  rule 
would  give  you  for  a  12-inch  gun :  1728 
divided  by  2  equals  864  (pounds). 

Q. — Is  it  costly  to  fire  these  huge 
guns? 

A. — The  Iron  Duke  has  ten  13-5-inch 
guns,  and  16  6-inch  guns.  With  all  the 
guns  in  action  she  uses  up  powder  and 
shot  to  the  value  of  $50,000  a  minute. 
The  weight  of  her  broadside  is  14,000 
pounds,  or  more  than  six  tons. 

Q. — What  is  the  penetrating  power 
of  a  twelve-inch  gun? 

A. — It  will  send  a  projectile  through 
three  feet  of  wrought  iron  at  5,000  yards. 
The  latest  15-inch  gun  will  perforate  42.5 
inches  of  steel  at  its  muzzle. 

Q. — Was  a  German  admiral  in  com- 
mand of  the  Turkish  fleet? 

A. — The  Turkish  fleet,  such  as  it  is,  was 
tinder  the  command  of  Admiral  Souchon, 
who,  despite  his  name,  is  a  German. 

Q. — What  additions  were  made  to 
the  foreign  fleets  during  the 
war? 

A. — Particulars  of  the  ship-building  in 
Great  Britain  naturally  were  not  pub- 
lished, but  when  war  was  declared  there 
were  several  super-dreadnaughts  of  the 
Queen  Elizabeth  type  building,  a  large 
number  of  light  cruisers  and  many  de- 
stroyers and  submarines.  In  addition 
there  were  the  Turkish  and  Chilean 
dreadnaughts  which  were  taken  over. 

Among  the  French  dreadnaughts  were 
the  six  Dantons,  assumed  to  be  the  equals 
of  the  dreadnaughts  proper  France  then 
had  in  commission.  The  Danton,  which 
gave  its  name  to  this  class,  was  sunk  on 
March  IQ,  1917,  by  a  submarine.  If  the 
French  ship-building  program  was  ad- 


hered to,  France  in  1917  should  have  had 
nine  super-dreadnaughts  in  addition  to 
those  in  this  list. 

__  Particulars  of  the  German   ships  built 
since  the  war  began  are  not  available. 

Four  Russian  dreadnaughts  were  prac- 
tically ready  when  the  war  broke  out,  and 
three  others  were  building  on  the  Black 
Sea.  One  of  these  has  been  reported 
sunk.  Presumably  the  other  two  are  in 
commission  there. 

If  the  Italian  ship-building  program 
was  carried  out,  there  should  have  been 
six  more  super-dreadnaughts  in  commis- 
sion in  1917.  One  of  the  dreadnaughts  in 
the  list,  the  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  was  blown 
up. 

Q. — What  ships  building  for  for- 
eign powers  did  Great  Britain 
take  over? 

A. — The  dreadnaught  originally  ordered 
by  Brazil,  purchased  from  her  by  Turkey, 
which  was  just  leaving  for  Constanti- 
nople. She  has  been  re-christened  A  gin- 
court.  The  Reshadieh,  another  dread- 
naught  just  completed  for  Turkey  by 
Messrs.  Vickers  Ltd.  Two  large  de- 
stroyers just  ready  for  delivery  to  Chile, 
vessels  with  a  displacement  of  1,850  tons, 
and  a  speed  of  over  31  knots;  also  three 
monitors  building  for  Brazil,  each  mount- 
ing two  6-inch  and  four  47-inch  guns. 

Q. — Were  the  Turks  willing  to  al- 
low their  two  battleships  to 
be  taken  over? 

A. — They  objected  strongly  and,  accord- 
ing to  the  British  ambassador  to  Con- 
stantinople, the  seizure  was  partly  respon- 
sible for  the  Turkish  entry  into  the  strug- 
gle against  the  Allies.  He  strongly  rec- 
ommended that  the  British  Government 
pay  the  Turks  for  the  vessels,  but  the 
British  Foreign  Secretary  objected  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  unwise  to  pay  money 
to  an  obviously  hostile  State,  and  thus 
help  to  provide  her  with  means. 

Q. — Are  the  acquired  Turkish  ships 
powerful  ? 

A. — The  Agincourt  is  27,000  tons  and  22 
knots.  She  has  14  12-inch  guns.  Origi- 
nally ordered  by  Brazil,  she  was  christ- 
ened Rio  de  Janeiro.  Turkey  purchased 
her,  on  the  stocks,  and  renamed  her  Sul- 
tan Ostnan.  She  and  the  Reshadieh,  now 
called  the  Erin,  were  quite  completed,  and 
were  running  their  speed  trials  when  Ger- 
many declared  war  on  Russia.  It  is  said 
that  Mr.  Churchill  purchased  them  on 
his  own  responsibility,  and  had  a  bad 


Foreign  Navies 


J45 


time  in  Cabinet  in  consequence.  Had  he 
not  done  so  at  once,  however,  they  would 
have  left  British  waters,  and  would  now 
be  fighting  for  the  Central  Powers  in  the 
East.  The  Erin  has  10  13-5-inch  guns, 
and  is  23,000  tons  displacement. 

Q. — What  battleships  were  build- 
ing in  Europe  for  foreign  pow- 
ers? 

A. — Two  huge  Chilean  dreadnaughts 
were  building  at  Newcastle;  also  a  pro- 
tected cruiser  for  Siam,  and  destroyers 
for  Brazil  and  Chile.  Germany  was  build- 
ing several  submarines  for  the  smaller 
Powers,  and  also  a  few  destroyers.  In 
addition  the  Greek  battle-cruiser  Salamis 
was  nearing  completion  in  her  yards. 

Q. — Were  these  the  only  ships 
which  Great  Britain  took  over  ? 

A. — No.  In  addition  there  were  six 
Chilean  destroyers,  each  of  about  1,800 
tons  and  31  knots.  Two  of  these  have 
already  joined  the  fleet.  They  are  said 
to  have  been  superior  to  anything  of  this 
type  in  the  navy  at  that  time,  with  the 
single  exception  of  the  Swift  (2,170  tons). 
The  Admiralty  also  took  over  three  mon- 
itors building  for  Brazil,  which  have  done 
excellent  service  off  the  coast  of  Belgium 
and  elsewhere. 

Q. — How  was  it  possible  for  Great 
Britain  to  obtain  warships 
from  neutrals? 

A. — Ships  building  in  British  shipyards 
are  liable  to  purchase  by  the  Admiralty, 
there  being  a  provision  in  the  agreement 
to  that  effect.  Article  6  of  the  Neutrality 
in  Naval  War  Convention  states  definitely 
that  "the  supply  on  any  ground  whatever, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  by  a  neutral 
power  to  a  belligerent  power  of  ships  of 
war  or  munitions  of  war  of  any  kind  is 
forbidden." 

Q. — How  many  warships  has  Chile, 
and  which  are  the  largest? 

A. — For  a  long  time  Chile  rested  satis- 
fied with  the  two  armored  cruisers,  Almi- 
rante  O'Higgins  (8,500  tons),  and  the 
Esmeralda  (7,020  tons),  completed  for  her 
in  Great  Britain  in  1898  and  1897  respec- 
tively. Just  before  the  war,  however,  she 
had  ordered  two  great  dreadnaughts  of 
28,000  tons  in  England.  These  were  near- 
ing  completion  when  the  war  began,  and 
were  taken  over  by  the  British  Admiralty. 


The  only  other  large  ship  Chile  possesses 
is  the  24-year-old  battleship  Capitan  Prat 
(7,000  tons). 

Q. — What  is  the  relative  rank  of 
the  officers  in  the  British  navy 
and  army? 

A.— Admirals  of  the  Fleet  rank  with 
Field-Marshals  ;  Admirals  with  Generals ; 
Vice-Admirals  with  Lieut-Generals ; 
Rear-Admirals  with  Major-Generals ; 
Commodores  with  Brigadier-Generals ; 
Captains  with  Colonels ;  Commanders 
with  Lieut.-Colonels ;  Lieutenants  (eight 
years)  with  Majors;  Lieutenants  (under 
eight  years)  with  Captains;  Sub-Lieuten- 
ants with  Lieutenants ;  Chief  Gunners 
with  Second  Lieutenants.  The  Navy  is 
the  senior  service,  and  always  takes  prece- 
dence of  the  Army. 

Q. — How  many  Australian-born 
men  are  there  in  the  Australian 
and  New  Zealand  navies? 

A. — There  is  no  New  Zealand  navy. 
New  Zealand  paid  for  the  New  Zealand 
battle-cruiser,  but  she  is  manned  by  a 
Royal  Navy  crew.  There  may  be  a  small 
sprinkling  of  men  aboard  her  born  in 
New  Zealand,  but  they  would  not  amount 
to  more  than  2  or  3  per  cent. 

Q. — Are  most  of  the  officers  in  the 
Australian  Navy  English? 

A. — Most  of  the  officers  are  assigned 
from  the  Royal  Navy.  Nearly  all  of  the 
executive  officers  belong  to  or  have  re- 
tired from  the  Royal  Navy;  a  few  have 
been  entered  into  the  Royal  Australian 
.Navy  from  the  British  merchant  service. 
All  the  senior  ranks  of  engineer  officers 
are  lent  from  the  Royal  Navy,  but  there 
are  about  fifteen  Australian  officers  now 
serving  who  have  been  entered  from  the 
Australian  Universities,  and  are  holding 
responsible  positions.  All  the  surgeons, 
except  the  director  of  medical  service, 
were  obtained  in  Australia.  Practically 
all  the  warrant  officers  belong  to  the  Royal 
Navy,  or  served  in  the  Royal  Navy  prior 
to  joining  the  Royal  Australian  Navy  per- 
manently. As  a  general  rule,  petty  officers 
and  men  with  over  four  years'  naval  ser- 
vice are  from  the  Royal  Navy.  All  men 
with  less  than  four  years'  service  were  ob- 
tained in  Australia,  but  about  25  per  cent 
of  these  were  born  in  England,  having 
originally  come  out  as  emigrants  or  as 
firemen,  stewards,  etc.,  on  merchant 
vessels. 


146 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Who  gave  the  naval  order 
which  "saved  England  from  in- 
vasion"? 

A. — Prince  Louis  of  Battenberg  it  was 
who,  on  his  own  responsibility,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  Mr.  Churchill,  ordered  all  ships 
to  "stand  fast"  instead  of  demobilizing  as 
ordered.  Later  the  opposition  press 
drove  this  highly  efficient  sailor  from 
office. 

Q. — What  is  a  gun-layer? 

A. — This  is  the  British  naval  term  for 
the  sailor  in  a  gun-crew  who  "lays"  the 
gun — that  is,  points  it  when  it  is  ready 
to  fire.  In  the  American  Navy  he  is 
called  "gun-pointer"  and  the  position  is 
one  that  is  eagerly  competed  for  and 
much  envied. 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  be- 
tween a  raider  and  an  auxiliary 
merchantman  ? 

A. — "Raider"  is  merely  the  descriptive 
word  for  a  ship  which  preys  on  hostile 
commerce.  It  may  be  any  kind  of  a  ves- 
sel, a  warship  or  an  armed  merchantman, 


which  latter  is  usually  called  an  auxiliary 
cruiser. 

Q. — Could  warships  be  protected 
with  concrete? 

A. — Some  naval  engineers  have  pro- 
posed systems  for  using  concrete  instead 
of  armor.  The  essential  idea  is  to  use 
several  layers  of  concrete-  between  steel 
armor-plates.  The  concrete  would  have 
to  be  from  3  to  4  feet  thick,  and  for  such 
places  as  turrets  there  would  be  almost 
equal  thickness  of  concrete  and  armor 
combined.  The  idea  has  not  gone  beyond 
theory. 

Q. — Did  the  German  Government 
force  the  Allies  to  put  a  neutral 
officer  on  hospital  ships? 

A. — The  Germans  declared  in  1917  that 
they  would  accord  safe  passage  through 
certain  zones  only  on  condition  that  a 
Spanish  naval  officer  were  on  each  ship 
to  guarantee  that  the  vessel  was  being 
used  solely  for  the  transport  of  sick  and 
wounded.  The  British  and  French  au- 
thorities finally  agreed  to  the  arrange- 
ment. Hospital  ships  have  been  attacked, 
however,  since  that  time. 


SOLDIERS  OF  THE  ALLIES 


Q. — Who  spent  the  most  money  on     Q. — How     many     soldiers     were 
armies  before  the  war ?  raised  in  Canada? 


A. — Germany  spent  about  $340,000,000 
on  her  army  organization  in  1913-1914. 
Russia  came  second  with  about  $330,000,- 
ooo.  France  followed  with  $240,000,000, 
and  Great  Britain  came  next  with  $140,- 
000,000.  Austria  was  behind  them  all, 
spending  "only"  $120,000,000.  Thus  the 
comparative  expenditures  of  the  big  op- 
posing forces  were:  Allies  $710,000,000 
(about),  Central  Powers  $460,000,000 
(about). 

Q. — What  were  the  armies  of  the 
great  Powers  before  the  war? 

A. — In  1913  the  peace  and  war  strengths 
were  as  follow : — 

Complete 

Peace        War        Mobi- 
strength.  strength,    lization. 
Austria   ...      435,000     1,820,000    3,500,000 

France  700,000     1,400,000    4,500,000 

Germany  ..      840,000     1,500,000    4,350,000 

Italy   250,000       800,000    3,220,000 

Russia   1,000,000    2,855,000    5,400,000 

U.  S.  A. ...        87,000       100,000       

Q. — What  is  the  total  enrollment  in 
the  British  armies? 

A. — At  the  beginning  of  1918  the  total 
enrollment  in  the  British  Armies  was 
7,500,000  men.  To  this  total  England  con- 
tributed 41,530,000 ;  Scotland  620,000  ; 
Wales  280,000;  Ireland  170,000;  the  do- 
minions and  colonies  900,000.  The  re- 
maining 1,000,000,  composed  of  native 
fighting  troops,  labor  corps,  carriers,  etc., 
were  from  India,  Africa  and  other  depen- 
dencies. 

Q. — How  large  are  the  armies  in 
France  and  Belgium? 

A. — When  Germany's  rush  westward 
was  stopped  at  the  Marne  in  the  autumn 
of  1914,  France  had  1,500,000  men  in  the 
fighting  line  and  England  scarcely  100,000. 
The  Germans  outnumbered  them  by  a  mil- 
lion men,  the  Allies'  artillery  was  out- 
ranged, and  they  were  deficient  in  aero- 
plane service.  By  1918  the  French  army 
at  the  front  had  grown  to  3,000,000  and 
the  British  army  to  2,500,000,  with  the 
American  soldiers  coming  in.  The  Ger- 
mans are  estimated  to  have  a  maximum  of 
4,500,000  on  their  west  front.  The  Allies 
have  also  gained  superiority  in  artillery. 


A. — Up  to  the  end  of  1917,  424,456  had 
been  enlisted.  Of  these  329,943  had  been 
sent  across  the  Atlantic. 

Q. — What  are  the  military  forces 
of  the  neutral  countries? 

A. — Switzerland  has  no  permanent  army 
to  speak  of.  Her  citizen  soldiers  number 
about  200,000.  Particulars  given  as  to  the 
strength  of  the  military  forces  vary  con- 
siderably. The  following  is  approxi- 
mately correct: — 

Peace  War 
establishment,     strength. 

Spain  128,000  300,000 

Holland  22,000  200,000 

Denmark 14,000  83,000 

Sweden  84,000  200,000 

Norway 18,000  70,000 

Q. — How  were  the  British  forces 
distributed  in  normal  times? 

A. — 127,400  in  the  United  Kingdom ;  77,- 
300  in  India;  12,500  in  Ceylon  and  China; 
11,850  in  South  Africa;  6,500  in  Egypt 
and  Cyprus ;  7,500  in  Malta ;  4,120  in  Gib- 
raltar; and  6,600  variously  scattered  en 
route  to  stations  and  in  the  Crown  Colo- 


Q. — What  troops  had  Great  Brit- 
ain in  India? 

A. — Besides  the  British  regiments,  77,- 
300  strong,  there  were  162,000  native 
troops,  28,500  military  police,  96,400  vol- 
unteers, reserves,  etc. 

Q. — What  were  the  Territorials? 

A. — The  "Terriers,"  as  they  were  called, 
took  the  place  in  England  of  the  old 
volunteers.  Members  of  this  force  had 
to  enlist  for  three  years,  and  during  that 
time  were  liable  to  be  called  upon  for 
active  service  at  home.  Like  our  State 
militia,  they  could  only  be  sent  abroad 
if  they  volunteered.  This  they  did  almost 
in  a  body,  and  they  were  the  first  troops 
after  the  regulars  to  reach  France. 

Q. — How   many   "Terriers"    were 
there? 

A. — In  April,  1913,  there  were  263,000. 
That  is  50,000  less  than  the  figures  com- 


147 


148 


Questions  and  Answers 


puted  for  the  entire  "establishment." 
Recruiting  was,  however,  brisk  during 
1913,  and  this  deficiency  was  considerably 
reduced. 

Q. — What  was  Great  Britain's  total 
effective  force  at  the  outbreak 
of  war? 

A. — 596,000,  made  up  as  follows :  Regi- 
ments in  the  United  Kingdom,  127,400; 
Army  reserves,  142,000;  special  reserves, 
61,000;  territorials,  263,000;  and  3,000 
more  or  less  unattached.  If,  however,  the 
British  troops  in  India  and  oversea  be  in- 
cluded, and  also  the  Indian  Army,  Great 
I'.ritain  had  a  total  strength  of  just  under 
a  million  men,  and  those  were  standing 
troops  ready  for  instant  service. 

Q. — Are  the  Zouaves  Frenchmen 
or  colored  troops? 

A. — The  Zouaves  are  the  professional 
soldiers  of  France,  and  are  basically 
Frenchmen.  They  were  originally  sta- 
tioned in  Northern  Africa,  hence  the 
semi-Moorish  uniform.  They  are  long 
service  men,  and  are  not  conscripted,  but 
are  much  like  the  men  who  enlist  in  our 
regular  army.  As  in  our  regular  army, 
there  may  be  (and  are)  Zouave  regiments 
made  of  colored  troops ;  but  the  Zouave 
organization  is  French,  not  foreign. 

Q. — Has  Portugal  taken  active 
part  in  the  war? 

A. — Yes.  She  has  sent  two  full  di- 
visions to  France  since  January  I,  1917, 
and  a  third  division  is  being  trained.  In 
less  than  a  year  Portugal  has  furnished 
75,000  soldiers,  and  has  100,000  more  in 
reserve,  trained.  Her  divisions  are  joined 
to  the  British  forces. 

Q. — What  wages  do  the  soldiers  of 
the  belligerents  receive  per 
day? 

A. — Great  Britain  gives  is.  2d.  (29 
cents)  ;  Germany,  5  cents  ;  France,  3  cents  ; 
Canada,  $1.12;  New  Zealand,  $1.25; 
and  Australia,  $1.50.  The  rate  of  pay  in 
the  Austrian  Army  is  about  the  same  as 
in  the  German. 

Q. — How  would  the  daily  army 
pay-bills  of  the  nations  com- 
pare? 

A. — That  of  Great  Britain  probably 
would  be  about'  six  times  that  of  Ger- 
many, while  Australia  appears  to  be  pay- 
ing every  day  in  wages  twice  as  great  a 


sum  as  that  paid  by  the  Kaiser  to  his 
millions  of  soldiers.  The  total  under 
arms  can,  of  course,  only  be  estimated,  as 
accurate  particulars  are  not  available. 
The  daily  wage  bill  probably  is  about  as 
follows : 

Germany,   with,   say,  5,000,000 

in  arms  $  250,000 

France,  with,  say,  3,500,000 

in  arms  105,000 

Great  Britain,  with,  say, 

5,000,000  in  arms  1,450,000 

Australia,  with,  say,  300,000 

in  arms   450,000 


Q. — How  are  the  ranks  named  in 
the  Indian  army? 

A. — Subadar,  Captain  ;  Jemadar,  Lieu- 
tenant ;  Havildar,  Sergeant ;  Naik,  Cor- 
poral; Sepoy,  Private  of  infantry;  Sowar, 
Trooper  of  cavalry;  Duffadar,  Sergeant 
of  cavalry. 

Q. — Were  all  the  soldiers  sent  from 
Australia  Australian  born? 

A. — Some  75  per  cent,  it  is  believed, 
were  born  there,  and  25  per  cent  were 
born  outside  of  Australia,  the  great  ma- 
jority in  Britain. 

Q. — Were  the  Irish  first  to  land  on 
Gallipoli? 

A. — They  were  the  first  to  get  ashore 
(on  April  25,  1915),  though  parties  of 
naval  men  had  landed  before  for  brief 
periods.  The  famous  River  Clyde  had 
about  2,300  Irishmen  on  board,  the  Dub- 
lins  and  the  Munsters,  and  two  com- 
panies of  the  Hampshire  regiment,  who 
were  brigaded  with  them.  Some  Dublins 
also  landed  in  open  boats.  The  Turkish 
positions  had  been  shelled  for  hours  by 
the  British  fleet,  and  the  enemy  had  given 
no  reply  whatever.  The  moment  the 
"Irishmen  approached  the  shore,  however, 
rifles  and  machine  guns  and  pom-poms 
opened  fire,  and  they  were  practically 
wiped  out.  Of  the  thousand  men  who 
left  the  River  Clyde  in  the  morning,  700 
were  killed,  drowned  or  wounded.  How- 
ever, a  landing  was  forced  in  the  end. 
A  Scottish  officer  who  saw  the  amazing 
landing  over  submerged  wire  entangle- 
ments in  face  of  the  terrific  fire  said :  "It 
is  but  the  merest  truth  to  state  that  there 
would  be  no  Dardanelles  campaign  heard 
of  to-day  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  ex- 
traordinary services  of  these  Irish  troops, 
white  men  every  one." 


Soldiers  of  the  Allies 


149 


Q.  —  How  many  British  were  at  the 
battle  of  Mons? 

A.  —  Sir  John  French  had  two  army 
corps  with  him,  roughly  75,000  men  with 
250  guns.  During  that  fight  and  in  the 
retreat  to  the  Marne,  some  17,000  men 
were  taken  prisoners,  and  the  losses  in 
killed  and  wounded  were  severe.  When 
the  offensive  began  at  the  Marne,  French 
had  been  reinforced  by  a  third  army  corps, 
but  he  probably  had  only  100,000  men 
under  his  command  altogether. 

Q.  —  Who  is  in  command  of  the 
Polish  Legion  in  the  enemy's 
forces  ? 

A.  —  Neutral  papers  have  stated  that  the 
commander  in  1916  was  Field-Marshal 
Lieutenant  von  Durski,  himself  a  Pole, 
who,  after  the  campaign  which  drove  the 
Russians  entirely  out  of  Poland,  united 
the  three  brigades  of  the  Polish  Legions 
into  one  command.  These  brigades  had 
been  fighting  in  different  districts  pre- 
viously. One  brigade  composed  of  Aus- 
trian Poles  had  been  fighting  continu- 
ously in  Galicia.  Another,  consisting  of 
men  who  had  been  dwelling  in  Poland 
proper,  was  engaged  before  Warsaw,  and 
the  third,  consisting  of  German  Poles, 
was  operating  farther  north.  The  Polish 
Legions  appear  to  have  distinguished 
themselves  greatly  in  the  field. 

Q.  —  What  became  of  the  Indian 
troops  who  were  in  France  in 


A.  —  They  were  withdrawn  from  the 
west  front  and  sent  to  Egypt.  From 
there  some  were  sent  to  Mesopotamia,  a 
few  returned  to  India,  and  a  few  appear 
to  have  gone  to  German  East  Africa. 

Q.  —  How    many    men    were    with 

General  Smuts? 

A.  —  According  to  General  Botha,  who 
gave  the  information  to  the  House  of  As- 
sembly in  Capetown,  20,000  men  were  sent 
from  South  Africa  to  fight  in  German 
East  Africa.  Troops  also  went  from  In- 
dia and  a  few  from  England.  As  the 
campaign  progressed,  however,  many  of 
the  white  fighters  were  withdrawn,  and 
in  the  end  the  army  consisted  heavily  of 
colored  soldiers,  the  majority  being  Af- 
rican natives. 

Q.  —  How  large   was   the   German 

army  in  East  Africa? 
A.  —  There    were    2,000    whites.      The 
number  of  natives  is  not  known,  but  is 
estimated  at  about  20,000. 


Q. — How   many   troops    had    von 
Mackensen  to  invade  Serbia? 

A. — It  is  believed  that  he  had  400,000 
men  available.  In  addition  a  small  Aus- 
trian army  entered  Serbia  from  Bosnia, 
and  the  Bulgarians  swarmed  across  from 
the  East.  Probably  by  the  time  the  con- 
quest of  Serbia  was  completed  750,000 
enemy  troops  were  in  the  country. 

Q. — How  many   troops   did  India 
send  to  the  front? 

A. — The  exact  number  has  not  been 
published,  but  in  1916  the  Secretary  of 
State  for  India  said  that  when  the  war 
began,  India  offered  seven  and  one-third 
divisions  of  infantry  and  five  cavalry  bri- 
gades. That  would  appear  to  mean  about 
140,000  infantry  and  9,000  mounted  men, 
with  all  necessary  equipment,  horses,  guns, 
etc.  In  August,  1914,  two  divisions  of  in- 
fantry and  one  of  cavalry  were  sent  to 
France,  and  two  cavalry  brigades  fol- 
lowed later.  This  would  make  in  all 
46,000  men.  A  division,  20,000  men,  was 
sent  to  British  East  Africa.  In  October, 
when  Turkey  declared  war,  a  division  was 
sent  to  Mesopotamia,  and  another  fol- 
lowed quickly,  making  40,000  men  there 
in  all.  In  November,  a  brigade  of  cavalry 
and  a  division  of  infantry  were  sent  to 
Egypt,  22,000  men.  That  is  128,000  fight- 
ing men.  All  these  forces  were  trans- 
ferred to  their  various  destinations,  com- 
plete with  ambulances  and  general  hos- 
pital. Presumably  reinforcements  have 
been  sent  to  keep  these  armies  up  to  full 
strength,  although  the  Minister  did  not 
.say  this.  Three  divisions  were  mobilized 
to  cope  with  the  troubles  on  the  north- 
west frontier,  and,  in  addition,  British 
infantry  and  artillery  were  set  free  for 
use  outside  of  India. 

Q. — What  is  the  French  Foreign 
Legion? 

A. — The  Foreign  Legion  is  the  name  by 
which  the  world  best  knows  the  Regi- 
ments etrangers  in  the  French  service. 
This  legion  is  composed  of  adventurous 
spirits  of  all  nationalities,  and  has  long 
been  employed  in  colonial  campaigns. 
For  a  long  time  it  was  stationed  in  Al- 
geria. All  sorts  and  conditions  of  men 
are  to  be  found  in  it,  for  courage  is  prac- 
tically the  sole  criterion  that  governs 
enlistment.  No  inquiry  is  made  into  their 
previous  careers.  French,  British,  Ger- 
mans, Americans,  Russians — in  fact,  al- 
most every  nationality  is  to  be  found  in 
the  ranks.  The  commanding  officers  are 
French.  The  Legion  has  done  excellent 


Questions  and  Answers 


service  during  the  great  war,  and  has  suf- 
fered very  heavy  casualties. 

Q. — Has  the  color  of  the  French 
uniform  been  changed  since 
the  war  began? 

A. — Yes.  It  has  been  done  slowly.  A 
year  or  so  before  the  outbreak  of  war, 
great  efforts  were  made  to  introduce  a 
uniform  less  conspicuous  than  the  blue 
and  red  that  the  Republic's  soldiers  had 
always  worn,  but  the  scheme  met  with 
so  much  opposition  that  it  was  dropped. 
The  new  uniform  is  bluish-green,  but,  ac- 
cording to  statements  in  technical  dye 
journals,  it  loses  its  color  quickly.  The 
steel  helmet,  which  has  replaced  the 
jaunty  cap,  is  an  equally  useful  change. 

Q. — How  large  is  the  Greek  army? 

A. — The  peace  strength  in  1915  was 
60,000  men.  The  war  strength  was  esti- 
mated as  about  300,000.  During  the  re- 
cent Balkan  wars,  Greece  put  ten  divisions 
of  12,000  men  in  the  field.  Most  of  the 
artillery  was  obtained  in  France,  but  the 
rifles  were  of  Austrian  make. 

Q. — What  is  the  population  of 
Greece? 

A. — The  population  of  Greece  proper, 
according  to  the  census  of  1907,  was 
2,630,000;  at  that  time  its  area  was  25,- 
ooo  square  miles.  Since  then  the  Epirus 
and  many  /Egean  Islands  have  been  add- 
ed, and  also  portions  of  Macedonia,  con- 
quered from  Turkey  in  1913,  which  make 
the  total  area  42,000  square  miles,  and 
the  total  population  about  4,800,000. 

Q. — Do  all  the  troops  at  the  front 
wear  khaki? 

A. — The  Americans  and  British  dp,  and 
the  Germans  have  a  field-gray  uniform, 
which  is  even  less  visible  than  khaki. 
The  French  troops  now  have  dull  green 
uniforms.  The  Russians  had  a  dark  green 
uniform  with  red  epaulettes,  the  Belgians 
a  bluish-gray  outfit. 

Our  own  troops  have  worn  the  standard 
light  brown  khaki-color  service  uniforms 
for  more  than  20  years.  The  American 
color,  while  apparently  quite  pronounced 
when  the  uniforms  are  seen  in  cities,  is 
excellent  for  low  visibility  against  nearly 
every  kind  of  landscape. 

Q. — Are  the  Austrians  strong 
fighters? 

A. — On  the  whole,  the  Austrians  have 
made  a  poor  showing  in  this  war.  Any 


victories  have  been  due  largely  to  Ger- 
man assistance  or  to  the  weakness  of  their 
foe.  In  one  respect  the  Austrian  armies 
have  been  second  to  none — in  their  heavy 
artillery.  The  excellent  artillery  service 
of  the  dual  empire  forced  the  Italians  to 
fight  their  way  inch  by  inch  through  the 
mountains,  and  at  all  times  Italy  has  been 
inferior  to  her  enemy  in  this  arm.  The 
Austrians  have  been  especially  ingenious 
in  developing  heavy  trench  mortars,  some 
of  them  hurling  hundreds  of  pounds  of 
high  explosive  into  the  opposing  trenches. 

Q. — Did  Portugal  greatly  help  the 
Allies  before  she  joined  them? 

A. — As  soon  as  hostilities  began  she 
declared  her  willingness  to  throw  in  her 
lot  with  the  Allies  whenever  Great  Brit- 
ain so  desired.  Germany,  before  Portu- 
gal formally  entered  the  war  against  her, 
protested  strongly  against  the  way  in 
which  the  Portuguese  permitted  the  vio- 
lation of  their  neutrality  by  allowing  Brit- 
ish warships  to  use  their  harbors  and 
granting  permission  to  British  troops  to 
cross  the  colony  of  Mozambique  to  attack 
German  East  Africa.  The  Kaiser  also 
protested  against  Portugal's  practice  in 
allowing  Great  Britain  to  use  Madeira  as 
a  naval  base. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  the  "Bat- 
talion of  Death"? 

_A. — A  fighting  legion  of  women  and 
girls  of  all  classes  in  Russia,  organized  in 
1917,  and  commanded  by  Madame  Botch- 
kalov,  a  Russian  revolutionist.  They  be- 
came a  part  of  the  Russian  army  and  took 
brilliant  part  in  several  engagements. 

Q. — Did  the  Vatican  spread  disrup- 
tive propaganda  among  the 
Italian  troops? 

A. — The  New  York  newspapers  of  Jan- 
uary 30,  1918,  published  the  following 
statement : 

Denials  from  the  Pope's  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  the  Prime  Minister  of 
Italy,  and  others  that  the  Pope  was  re- 
sponsible for  spreading  disruptive  propa- 
ganda or  for  the  Italian  disaster  were 
made  public  by  Adrian  Iselin,  Chairman 
of  a  committee  of  Catholic  laymen. 

This  information  was  contained  in  a 
letter  by  F.  C.  Walcott  of  the  United 
States  Food  Administration,  in  retracting 
a  statement  which  he  had  made. 

Mr.  Walcott  said : 

"My  statement  attributed  to  the  Pope  a 
measure  of  responsibility  for  the  Italian 
disaster,  and  for  the  disruptive  propa- 


Soldiers  of  the  Allies 


ganda  which  had  brought  it  about.  I 
repeated  thoughtlessly  and  without  pre- 
vious reflection  a  rumor  I  had  heard, 
which  I  had  not  verified,  and  which  I 
am  now  convinced  and  believe  was  un- 
true. I  have  since  read  the  categorical 
denial  of  Cardinal  Gasparri,  the  Pope's 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  the  de- 
nial of  Cardinal  Bourne  in  London,  and 
I  have  also  read  the  statement  recently 
made  by  Signer  Orlando,  the  Prime  Min- 
ister of  Italy,  in  the  Italian  Chamber  of 
Deputies. 

"I  therefore  feel  that  it  is  my  duty  to 
retract  the  statement  I  made  in  regard 
to  the  Pope,  which  I  do  without  reserve, 
and  I  would  like  to  correct  the  unfortu- 
nate and  erroneous  impression  my  re- 
marks tended  to  create." 

Q. — Did  the  Pope  induce  the  Turks 
to  respect  British  graves  on 
Gallipoli? 

A. — Yes.  He  communicated  with  the 
Turkish  Government  in  the  matter, 
through  the  Apostolic  Delegate  at  Con- 
stantinople. Enver  Pasha,  in  reply,  as- 
sured him  that  the  graves  and  the 
religious  emblems  that  adorned  them 
would  be  carefully  protected.  As  a  mark 
of  his  esteem  for  the  Pope  he  had  photo- 
graphs taken  of  the  graves  and  sent  to 
Rome. 

Q. — What  is  the  origin  of  the  word 
"Anzac"? 

A. — It  was  a  composite  word  used  as 
the  name  of  the  British  colonial  troops  in 
the  romantic,  though  unsuccessful,  Galli- 
poli undertaking.  The  men  were  from 
Australia  and  New  Zealand,  and,  as  their 
organization  was  officially  known  as  the 
Australian-New  Zealand  Army  Corps,  the 
initial  letters  of  this  long  title  were  put 
together  to  form  the  new  word. 

Q. — What  is  the  fate  of  a  captured 
newspaper  correspondent? 

A. — The  enemy  should  treat  him  as  a 
prisoner  of  war,  provided  he  can  produce 
or  obtain  a  certificate  from  the  military 
authorities  of  the  army  he  was  accom- 
panying. 

Q. — What  is  the  fate  of  a  non-com- 
batant with  arms  in  his  hands  ? 

A. — The  rules  of  war  permit  his  being- 
shot  without  mercy.  His  position  is  a 
little  better  now  than  it  was  before  the 
Hague  Conference  of  1907.  It  was  agreed 
there  that  if  he  carries  arms  openly  and 


respects  the  laws  and  customs  of  war,  he 
must  be  regarded  as  a  belligerent.  He 
must,  however,  wear  some  sort  of  a  uni- 
form or  a  badge,  which  can  be  recognized 
at  a  distance,  and  which  cannot  be  re- 
moved at  will.  This  was  urged  by  Eng- 
land and  France,  who  desired  to  legalize 
the  position  of  volunteers  and  irregulars, 
who  previously  were  only  entitled  to  be 
regarded  as  belligerents  by  the  courtesy 
of  their  foe. 

Q. — If  a  civilian,  to  defend  his 
home,  used  a  rifle,  would  he  be 
shot  if  captured? 

A. — Certainly  he  would. 

Q. — But  is  that  not  murder? 

A. — War,  says  General  Sherman,  is  hell. 
But  the  rule  forbidding  civilians  to  resort 
to  arms  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
protection  of  all  non-combatants.  If  ci- 
vilians were  permitted  to  fight,  no  troops 
would  venture  to  enter  a  village  or  town 
until  they  had  killed  or  driven  out  every- 
one in  it.  The  troops  alone  must  carry 
on  war.  The  rest  of  the  nation  must  re- 
main at  peace. 

Q. — Have  reprisals  in  previous 
wars  brought  about  desired  re- 
sults ? 

A. — As  a  general  rule,  they  have  failed 
entirely,  but  in  previous  wars  only  a  very 
small  part  of  the  entire  communities  of 
the  countries  at  war  were  at  all  concerned. 
In  The  Laws  and  Usages  of  War,  issued 
by  the  British  War  Office  in  1914,  various 
examples  are  given.  One  occurred  dur- 
ing the  war  between  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  a  hundred  years  ago.  It 
reads  as  follows : 

"In  1813  the  British  Government  hav- 
ing sent  to  England  to  be  tried  for  trea- 
son 23  Irishmen  naturalized  in  the  United 
States  who  had  been  captured  on  vessels 
of  the  United  States,  Congress  author- 
ized the  President  to  retaliate.  Under 
this  act,  General  Dearborn  placed  in  close 
confinement  23  prisoners  taken  at  Fort 
George.  General  Prevost,  under  the  ex- 
press direction  of  Lord  Bathurst,  ordered 
the  close  imprisonment  of  double  the 
number  of  commissioned  and  non-com- 
missioned United  States  officers.  This 
was  followed  by  a  threat  of  unmitigated 
severity  against  American  citizens  and 
villages  in  case  the  system  of  retaliation 
was  pursued.  Mr.  Madison  retaliated  by 
putting  into  confinement  a  similar  num- 
ber of  British  officers  taken  by  the  United 
States.  General  Prevost  immediately  re- 


152 


Questions  and  Ansiccrs 


taliated  by  subjecting  to  the  same  disci- 
pline all  his  prisoners.  A  better  temper, 
however,  soon  came  over  the  British  Gov- 
ernment .  .  .  and  the  prisoners  were  re- 
leased on  both  sides." 

In  this  connection,  it  is  worth  noting 
that  at  the  conference  in  1917  between 
British  and  German  delegates  at  The 
Hague  it  was  decided  that  all  reprisals 
should  be  abandoned,  and  both  sides  un- 
dertook to  withdraw  all  prisoners  from 
the  war  zones  in  the  west. 

Q. — How  do  people  in  the  con- 
quered French  provinces  ob- 
tain news? 

A. — The  Germans  publish  a  newspaper 
called  Gazette  dcs  Ardennes,  100,000 
copies  of  which  are  circulated,  chiefly 
through  the  post,  three  times  a  week. 

Q.— Will  the  shell-filled  battle- 
grounds not  be  dangerous  for 
farmers  ? 

A. — The  danger  has  been  realized.  Un- 
less something  is  done  it  would  be  quite 
possible  for  a  ploughman  to  strike  a 
shell  with  sufficient  force  to  kill  him  or 
blow  his  horses  to  pieces.  Various  solu- 
tions of  the  problem  have  been  suggested. 
A  French  scientist  has  perfected  an  elec- 
trical instrument  which  will  give  warn- 
ing when  a  mass  of  metal  is  near.  The 
apparatus  requires  the  services  of  two 
men.  They  can  explore  an  acre  thor- 
oughly in  about  an  hour,  and  discover 
every  shell  near  enough  to  the  surface  to 
do  any  harm. 

Q.— What  is  the  British  law  re- 
ferred to  as  "Dora"? 

A. — "Dora"  is  the  nickname  or  abbre- 
viation for  the  Defence  of  the  Realm 
Act 

Q. — How  many  English  horses 
were  bought  for  war? 

A. — The  figures  for  1916  show  that  dur- 
ing that  year  400,000  horses  had  been  pur- 
chased at  a  cost  of  almost  $100,000,000, 
which  works  out  at  an  average  of  nearly 
$250  each. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  the  English 
censor  expurgated  Kipling's 
verse  ? 

A. — He  cut  out  a  couple  of  words  from 
a  quotation  from  Kipling's  Recessional, 
which  a  correspondent  at  the  front  was 


ill-advised  enough  to  put  in  one  of  his 
despatches.  The  particular  lines  which 
fell  under  the  censor's  ban  were: 


"The  tumult  and  the  shouting 
The  captains  and  the  kings  depart." 

The  censor  put  his  pen  through  "and 
the  kings,"  for  it  was  obviously  dangerous 
to  refer  to  the  movements  of  kings  in  this 
reckless  way!  Curiously  enough  Kipling 
pot  into  trouble  over  the  same  pair  of 
lines  fifteen  years  ago.  It  was  the  censors 
of  language,  the  grammarians  and  their 
devoted  followers  who  pitched  into  him 
then,  and  they  objected  to  the  first  line  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  customary  to  pro- 
vide a  plural  subject  with  a  plural  verb. 
The  Kiplingites  rushed  to  the  defense  of 
their  master,  and  argued  that  tumult  and 
shouting  meant  the  same  thing,  and  that 
the  subject  was  "psychologically  singu- 
lar." 

Q.  —  What    do    the    letters    behind 
English  names  mean? 

A.  —  A  few  of  the  most  usual  are  ab- 
breviated as  follows  :  O.M.  signifies  Or- 
der of  Merit,  and  is  the  only  honor  con- 
ferred without  the  recipient's  consent 
having  first  been  obtained  ;  K.G.,  Knight 
of  the  Garter;  K.T.,  Knight  of  the  This- 
tle: K.P.,  Knight  of  St.  Patrick;  K.C.B., 
Knight  Commander  of  the  Bath  ;  G.C.B., 
Knight  Grand  Cross  of  the  Bath;  C.B., 
Companion  of  the  Bath  ;  K.C.S.I.,  Knight 
Grand  Commander  of  the  Star  of  In- 
dia; C.S.I.,  Companion  of  the  Star  of 
India;  G.C.M.G.  and  K.C.M.G.,  Knight 
Grand  Cross  and  Knight  Commander  re- 
spectively of  St.  Michael  and  St.  George  ; 
C.M.G.,  Companion  of  that  Order;  G.C.I. 
E.  and  K.C.I.E.,  Knight  Grand  Cross  and 
Knight  Commander  of  the  Indian  Em- 
pire ;  C.V.O.,  Commander  of  the  Victor- 
ian Order;  D.S.O.,  Distinguished  Service 
Order.  The  above  are  given  in  order  of 
precedence.  Other  letters  used  are  :  P.C., 
Privy  Councillor  ;  V.C.,  Victoria  Cross  ; 
L.H.,  Legion  of  Honor. 

Q.  —  Who  were  the  Franc-Tireurs  ? 

A.  —  They  were  irregular  bands  of 
Frenchmen  who  waged  a  guerilla  ^war  fare 
against  the  German  invaders  in  1871. 
The  Germans  did  not  recognize  them  as 
belligerents  unless  they  wore  a  uniform. 
When  caught  without  one,  they  were  sum- 
marily shot.  The  shooting  of  non-com- 
batants who  have  taken  up  arms  is  the 
military  act  of  force  which  gives  rise  to 
the  wildest  stories  of  cold-blooded  mur- 
der in  all  wars. 


Q. — Did  Germany  issue  an  ulti- 
matum to  Belgium? 

A. — Yes.  At  7  p.m.,  on  August  2,  1914, 
Herr  Von  Biilow  delivered  Germany's  ul- 
timatum, which  was  in  effect  an  an- 
nouncement of  Germany's  intention  to 
violate  Belgium's  neutrality  forcibly  if 
necessary.  Belgium's  resolve  to  uphold, 
her  own  neutrality  was  given  to  the  Ger- 
man ambassador  within  twenty-four 
hours.  Germany,  however,  had  not 
waited  for  a  response,  but  had  already 
invaded  Belgian  soil  at  Vise. 

Q. — Did  Germany  ever  confess  that 
entrance  into  Belgium  was  a 
violation  of  treaty? 

A. — The  German  Chancellor  acknowl- 
edged the  entrance  into  Belgium  as  a 
violation  of  treaty  and  characterized  it 
as  a  "wrong  dictated  by  military  neces- 
sity." The  Kaiser  in  a  message  to  Presi- 
dent  Wilson,  dated  August  10,  1914. 
through  Mr.  Gerard,  speaks  of  it  as  "Bel- 
gian neutrality  which  had  to  be  violated 
by  Germany  on  strategical  grounds." 

Q. — Did  the  United  States  ac- 
knowledge the  right  of  Ger- 
many to  annex  Belgium? 

A. — No.  Mr.  Whitlock  remained  ac- 
credited to  the  Belgian  government.  Ger- 
many holds  the  occupied  part  of  Belgium 
by  martial  law  alone. 

Q. — Who  was  Belgian  prime  min- 
ister at  outbreak  of  war? 

A. — Baron  de  Brocqueville  was  the 
Premier  and  Minister  of  War.  These 
two  offices  are  vested  in  one  minister. 

Q. — Under  what  rule  is  Luxem- 
bourg at  present? 

A. — German  troops  invaded  Luxem- 
bourg on  Sunday  morning,  August  2,  fn 
order  (according  to  the  German  govern- 
ment) to  assure  the  use  of  the  railways, 
which  had  been  leased  to  Germany,  and 
they  now  occupy  it. 

Q. — Is  Luxembourg  a  neutral  still? 

A. — Probably  she  is,  technically.  Lux- 
embourg protested  against  the  violatton^of 
its  neutrality  and  against  the  expulsion 


of  the  French  ambassador  on  August  4. 
But  the  duchy  is  said  to  have  received 
about  $256.000  indemnity,  because  it  re- 
frained from  armed  resistance,  and  ac- 
ceptance of  this  may  be  held  to  have 
clouded  the  title  to  neutrality.  However, 
Luxembourg  appears  still  to  be  considered 
neutral  and  independent  Its  ruler  is 
Grand-Duchess  Marie-Adelaide. 

Q. — What  became  of  English  and 
French  properties  in  Belgium? 

A. — The  American  ambassador,  Mr. 
Whitlock,  assumed  the  French  and  Brit- 
ish legations  as  well  as  the  German  and 
Austrian,  protecting  as  best  he  could  all 
their  interests.  The  Germans,  however, 
have  shown  small  regard  for  the  property 
or  rights  of  any  other  nation,  enemy  or 
otherwise. 

Q. — Was  Brussels  besieged  by  the 

Germans? 

A.— No.  Mr.  Whitlock,  the  American 
ambassador,  realizing  the  futility  of  at- 
tempting a  defense  urged  upon  the  Bel- 
gian General  Staff  that  they  surrender  the 
city  without  resistance,  hoping  thereby  to 
save  not  only  the  lives  of  the  inhabitants, 
but  the  historic  buildings,  art  treasures, 
etc.  The  Germans  took  the  city  without 
a  siege  on  August  ao,  1914. 

Q. — Was  Belgium  an  entirely  in- 
dependent country? 

A. — Belgium  is  an  independent  limited 
monarchy  with  a  national  existence  dat- 
ing to  50  B.  C  Julius  Gesar  speaks  of 
the  Belgians  as  "The  bravest  of  the  Gal- 
lic tribes."  Belgium  has  a  king,  a  house 
of  Parliament,  consisting  of  a  Senate  and 
a  Chamber  of  Deputies  elected  by  popu- 
lar suffrage.  Her  cities  have  burgomas- 
ters (mayors),  and  there  are  three  pow- 
erful political  parties:  Catholic,  Liberal, 
and  Socialist  Belgian  neutrality  was 
guaranteed  by  England,  Russia,  France 
and  Germany  as  a  protective  measure 
against  invasion  by  each  other. 

Q. — Are    the    Belgians    a    homo- 
geneous race? 

A. — There  are  two  distinct  peoples  in 
Belgium — the  Walloons  and  the  Flemings. 
The  Walloons  dwell  in  the  Provinces  of 
Hainault,  Namur,  Liege,  and  parts  of 
Luxembourg  and  South  Brabant.  A  few 


153 


154 


Questions  and  Answers 


live  In  the  French  departments  of  Nord 
and  Ardennes.  As  the  name  indicates, 
they  were  originally  strangers  in  the  land 
— the  Welsh  of  the  country.  They  re- 
semble the  French  in  vivacity  and  adap- 
tability. There  were  about  2,600,000  of 
them,  and  their  native  tongue  is  French. 
The  Flemings  live  in  Flanders,  and  at 
one  time  were  an  important  industrial 
autonomous  community.  Their  country 
was  bounded  by  the  Scheldt,  the  North 
Sea,  and  the  Somme,  and  has  always  been 
much  fought  over,  but,  nevertheless,  has 
always  preserved  active  industrial  inter- 
ests. About  3,500,000  Flemings  lived  in 
Belgium.  Their  language  may  be  de- 
scribed as  a  sort  of  southern  Dutch. 
Some  2,000,000  speak  nothing  else,  but 
a  large  number  speak  both  Flemish  and 
French. 

Q. — Has  there  actually  been  a 
movement  for  Flemish  sepa- 
ration ? 

A. — 'Yes.  During  1917  a  party  was 
formed  in  Flanders  under  the  name 
"Activists."  Meetings  were  held  and 
delegates  were  elected.  The  separation 
of  Flemish  Belgium  and  Walloon  Bel- 
gium was  proclaimed  and  the  promoters 
of  the  movement  organized  what  they 
appear  to  have  claimed  was  in  effect  a 
government.  The  reports  about  it  were 
meager,  fragmentary,  and  somewhat  con- 
tradictory. It  seemed  pretty  clear,  how- 
ever, that  the  "Activists"  did  not  con- 
template a  sundering  of  Belgium,  but 
worked  on  the  lines  of  establishing  more 
or  less  autonomous  governments  within 
Belgium  of  the  two  races.  They  went 
so  far  as  to  designate  capital  cities  for 
each  of  the  two  divisions.  There  was 
violent  protest  from  many  prominent  Bel- 
gians such  as  Cardinal  Mercier,  Belgian 
civil  authorities,  etc. 

Q. — Did  the  Belgian  authorities  ac- 
knowledge the  separation? 

A. — No.  In  February,  1918,  the  Bel- 
gian Court  of  Appeals  in  Brussels  or- 
dered the  prosecution  of  the  "Activists" 
(as  the  Flemish  promoters  of  the  move- 
ment called  themselves)  for  treason  in, 
plotting  against  the  form  of  government 
established  by  the  Belgian  Constitution. 
Two  of  the  leaders  were  arrested. 

Q. — Were  the  Belgian  courts  actu- 
ally in  force? 

A. — Evidently  so,  for  the  process  of  the 
court  was  executed.  However,  the  Ger- 
mans did  take  a  hand  then.  They  de- 
clared that  the  Belgian  judges  had  ex- 


ceeded their  authority,  and  finally,  when 
it  appeared  that  the  two  arrested  men 
were  to  be  condemned,  they  ordered  their 
release.  The  judges  refused,  and  they 
•were  arrested  in  their  turn. 

Q. — Would  the  Flemings  and  Wal- 
loons naturally  wish  to  sepa- 
rate? 

A. — The  present  movement  most  prob- 
ably was  deliberately  fostered  by  the 
Germans.  But  Flemings  and  Walloons 
have  from  time  immemorial  had  de- 
cidedly diverging  views  and  aspirations. 
The  Flemings  had  felt  for  many  years 
that  they  were  being  dominated  unduly 
by  the  Walloons.  Some  years  before  the 
war,  there  was  a  great  "Flemish  re- 
vival," led  by  such  men  as  Huysmans.  It 
was  largely  in  the  direction  of  reinstat- 
ing Flemish  literature  and  language. 

Q. — Was  Belgian  neutrality  differ- 
ent from  other  neutrality? 

A. — Yes.  The  neutrality  of  the  big  na- 
tions like  the  United  States,  Great  Brit- 
ain, Germany,  etc.,  in  case  of  a  war  be- 
tween other  nations,  is  something  for 
each  to  decide  for  itself.  It  may  remain 
neutral  or  not  just  as  it  chooses.  If  it 
chooses  not  to  be  neutral,  it  must,  of 
course,  accept  the  risk  that  goes  with  its 
position,  but  it  has  the  right  to  do  what 
it  wishes.  Belgium  was  different  from 
this;  Belgium's  neutrality  was  an  obliga- 
tion on  her  part.  She  was  bound  by 
treaty  to  maintain  her  neutrality.  It 
•was  a  contract  between  herself  and  Great 
Britain,  France  and  Germany;  and  these 
powers,  in  turn,  agreed  to  respect  her 
neutrality  and  to  prevent  any  violation  of 
it  by  anybody. 

Q. — Suppose  Belgium,  without  be- 
ing invaded,  had  helped  the 
Allies? 

,  A. — It  would  have  been  a  clear  viola- 
tion of  her  obligation,  and  Germany 
•would  then  have  been  in  position  to  in- 
vade Belgium  legally.  Under  a  strict  in- 
terpretation of  the  agreement,  it  might 
even  be  held  that  Belgium  had  not  the 
right  that  other  neutral  countries  had, 
to  permit  the  transport  across  her  ter- 
ritory of  supplies  that  were  contraband. 

Q. — May  other  neutral  nations  per- 
mit transport  across  their  ter- 
ritory? 

A. — They  may  permit  the  transport  of 
contraband  of  war,  and  even  munitions, 


Ravaged  Belgium 


155 


providing  they  are  shipped  in  the  regular 
way  as  freight.  But,  for  instance,  they 
could  not  legally  permit  a  belligerent  to 
transport  a  single  machine  gun,  or  any 
other  material  of  war,  with  his  own  peo- 
ple or  soldiers ;  nor  could  they  permit 
any  belligerent  to  transport  any  of  his 
own  actual  military  equipment  and  sup- 
plies across  their  territory,  even  though 
it  were  only  a  few  hundred  yards.  They 
may  permit  the  civilians  of  belligerent 
countries  to  move  as  they  please ;  but 
they  may  not  permit  soldiers  to  use  their 
territory  at  all. 

Q. — Did  the  powers  guarantee  Bel- 
gian neutrality  for  her  sake? 

A. — No.  So  far  as  Belgium's  own  In- 
terests were  concerned,  the  big  nations 
of  Europe  did  not  trouble  themselves 
about  her,  any  more  than  they  troubled 
themselves  about  Holland,  Denmark, 
Switzerland  and  so  forth.  The  only  rea- 
son for  the  neutrality  convention  over 
Belgium  was  her  strategic  position.  It 
was  such  that  it  was  equally  dangerous 
to  each  big  nation,  because  it  offered  a 
possible  route  of  invasion  or  attack. 

Germany  wanted  Belgium  neutralized 
in  order  to  prevent  France  from  coming 
through.  France  wanted  the  neutraliza- 
tion to  block  Germany.  Great  Britain 
wanted  it  to  protect  her  Channel  ap- 
proaches against  either  German  or  French 
attack  from  the  Belgian  coast. 

Q. — Has  Belgium  been  used  as  a 
battlefield  often? 

A. — Every  time  there  was  war  in  west- 
ern Europe  Belgium  was  a  scene  of 
either  battles  or  army-movements,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Franco-Prussian 
War,  when  the  neutralization  agreement 
was  reaffirmed  and  adhered  to. 

The  French  and  British  Wars,  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  century,  ^were 
largely  fought  on  Belgian  territory. 
Many  of  the  famous  European  battles 
were  around  Belgian  towns — the  Battle 
of  the  Spurs  (1302),  Courtrai ;  Bruges 
(1745,  1794),  occupied  by  French;  Brus-- 
sels,  French,  Spanish  and  Austrian  wars ; 
Tournay,  English  and  French  (1709)  ; 
Lpuvain  taken  by  French  (1792,  1794)  ', 
Liege  taken  by  Marlborough  (1702),  by 
French  (1792)  ;  Lierre  taken  by  Marl- 
borough  (1706)  ;  Namur  bombarded  by 
Allies  against  Napoleon  (1704)  ;  Tirle- 
mont,  Austrians  and  French  (1793,  1794)  ; 
Roulers,  Austrians  and  French  (1794)  ; 
Waterloo,  defeat  of  Napoleon  (1815). 
There  have  been  many  more.  Almost  all 
the  line  held  now  by  the  opponents  in 


Belgium  has  been  the  scene  of  many  cam- 
paigns. 

Q. — Would  it  be  cheaper  for  Ger- 
many to  restore  Belgium  than 
to  continue  the  war  for  a 
week? 

A. — The  very  lowest  estimate  of  Ger- 
many's war-cost  was  $127,000,000  a  week. 
That  estimate  was  made  early  in  1917, 
before  we  entered  the  war,  and  it  did 
not  take  into  account  the  steadily  rising 
cost  week  after  week.  It  is  fair  to  as- 
sume that  even  if  the  German  expenses 
are  less  than  those  of  the  Allies,  the 
weekly  cost  in  March,  1918,  had  risen  to 
$140,000,000  at  least.  Assuming  that 
Liege,  Louvain,  Tournai,  Courtrai  and 
Vervieres  had  been  entirely  destroyed 
(which  is  not  correct,  as  the  destruction 
Is  only  partial),  Germany  could  prob- 
ably pay  the  total  value  of  these  five 
cities  alone  out  of  three  weeks'  war- 
costs.  An  estimate  of  the  values  of  five 
of  our  very  important  New  England 
manufacturing  towns  (calculated  in  1915 
by  military  experts  to  estimate  the  pos- 
sible cost  of  invasion  to  America)  gives 
their  value  as  $483,000,000. 

Q. — What  damages  could  Germany 
pay  Belgian  sufferers  with  one 
week's  war-cost? 

A. — She  could  pay  each  and  every  in- 
habitant of  Vervieres,  Louvain,  Tournai, 
Courtrai,  Namur,  Mons  and  Charleroi  al- 
most $1,000. 

She  could  pay  for  almost  all  the  for- 
ests of  Belgium  (estimating  their  value 
as  based  on  the  Belgian  revenues  from 
forests  products).  Or  she  could  pay 
damages  amounting  to  more  than  $10,000 
for  every  square  mile  of  Belgian  terri- 
tory. Or  she  could  pay  three  times  over 
for  every  bit  of  live  stock  that  existed 
in  Belgium  before  the  war. 

Q. — How  many  houses  were  de- 
stroyed in  all  Belgium? 

A. — According  to  a  report  issued  of- 
ficially by  the  Belgian  Government,  the 
total  number  of  buildings  destroyed  in 
the  whole  country  was  estimated  on 
May  I,  1916,  as  43,198. 

Q. — Were  these  all  destroyed  pur- 
posely ? 

A. — The  Belgian  official  commission 
said  in  its  report  that  it  was  not  pos- 
sible to  make  distinction  between  build- 


156 


Questions  and  Answers 


ings  destroyed  by  acts  of  war  and  those 
which  were  destroyed  as  punishment  for 
alleged  hostile  acts  of  the  population. 
The  report  added :  "It  can  be  admitted 
at  once  that  the  destruction  of  buildings 
in  West  Flanders  is  due  almost  entirely 
to  bombardments,  and  it  is  estimated,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  at  least  20,000  build- 
ings in  the  rest  of  the  country  have  been 
set  afire  by  the  German  armies  under 
pretext  of  reprisals." 

Q. — What  sum  would  cover  the 
damage  to  the  destroyed  prop- 
erty? 

A. — Assuming  that  all  the  43,198  de- 
stroyed buildings  in  Belgium  had  been 
destroyed  by  the  Germans,  and  assum- 
ing that  each  building  was  worth  $10,000 
(which  is  a  valuation  wildly  beyond  the 
possible  actual  values,  since  most  of  the 
houses  were  small  village  houses),  the 
total  sum  needed  to  pay  for  the  destruc- 
tion would  be  $431,980,000.  Three  weeks' 
war-cost  at  $140,000,000  a  week  would 
pay  even  this  high  sum.  If  we  estimate 
an  average  value  of  $2,000  a  house  (still 
fairly  high,  but  approximately  near  ac- 
tual facts),  we  would  have  damages 
amounting  to  $86,396,000 — payable  out 
of  4*/2  days'  war-cost. 

Q. — How  big  is  Belgium? 

A. — n,373  square  miles.  Holland  is 
12,628  square  miles.  Germany  is  208,- 
780  square  miles.  France  is  almost  ex- 
actly the  same  size  as  Germany,  viz.,  207,- 
054.  If  she  regains  Alsace-Lorraine  she 
will  be  larger  than  the  German  Empire 
by  9,000  square  miles. 

Q. — Was  Antwerp  fortified? 

A. — It  was  regarded  as  the  strongest 
fortress  in  the  world.  Five  years  before 
the  war  it  was  decided  to  spend  $20,000,- 
ooo  on  remodeling  the  forts,  and  provid- 
ing new  armaments.  In  addition  to  the 
great  protecting  forts,  the  town  was  en- 
circled by  ramparts,  and  completely  sur- 
rounded by  wide  channels  of  water. 
Powerful  forts  covered  the  Scheldt 
(which  is  also  called  the  Escaut  until  it 
reaches  the  Dutch  frontier).  As  we 
know,  the  forts,  deemed  impregnable, 
were  battered  to  bits  by  the  huge  Ger- 
man howitzers,  their  own  guns  being  of 
too  short  a  range  to  reply. 

Q. — Was  Antwerp  the  greatest  sea- 
port in  the  whole  world? 

A. — New  York  handled  a  couple  of 
hundred  thousand  more  tons  in  1913,  but 
for  a  long  time  Antwerp  has  been  first. 


The   recent  immense  growth  in   tonnage 

of  the  transatlantic  liners  has  given  New 
York  her  premier  position.  The  figures 
are  interesting : 

Entered.  Cleared. 

New  York 12,763,765  13-549,138 

Antwerp  13.233,677  13,272,665 

Hamburg    11,830,949  11,946,239 

Hong  Kong 11,138,527  11,142,117 

Rotterdam    10,624,499  10,609,814 

London  10,800,716  8,748,008 

Montevideo...       8,244,375  8,121,543 

Marseilles    8,051,321  8,198,874 

Singapore 7-737,785  7,717,691 

Cardiff    6,236,044  9,168,115 

Liverpool    7,253,016  7,446,873 

Colombo  7,074,152  7,073,170 

Rio   de   Janeiro.       5,212,713  5,198,784 

Shanghai    4,183,528  4,155,152 

Q. — In  ordinary  times  is  Belgium 
self-supporting? 

_  A. — Not  by  a  very  large  margin.  In 
times  of  peace  Belgium,  like  Great  Brit- 
ain, was  obliged  to  import  large  quanti- 
ties of  foodstuffs,  almost  two-thirds,  in 
fact,  of  the  total  consumption.  It  is  ob- 
vious enough,  therefore,  that  if  the  Bel- 
gians are  to  exist,  large  quantities  of 
food  must  be  sent  them  from  outside. 

Q. — How  many   Belgian  refugees 
were  still  in  Holland  in  1917? 

A. — According  to  the  last  official  re- 
port, January,  1917,  less  than  eighteen 
thousand  were  then  in  Holland  who  were 
dependent  on  Dutch  hospitality.  An 
equal  number  were  estimated  to  be  there, 
also,  who  were  paying  their  own  ex- 
penses. During  the  German  invasion  it 
is  said  that  a  million  refugees  reached 
Holland  from  over  the  border,  but  many 
soon  returned  to  Belgium,  and  many 
crossed  to  England.  During  1915  Hol- 
land spent  $3,500,000  for  the  maintenance 
of  refugees. 

Q.— Who  was  Edith  Cavell? 

A. — She  was  an  Englishwoman,  direc- 
tress of  a  large  nursing  home  at  Brus- 
sels, Belgium. 

Q. — Why  was  she  executed  by  the 
Germans  ? 

A. — On  Aug.  5,  1915,  she  was  arrested 
by  the  German  authorities  and  confined 
in  the  prison  at  St.  Gilles  on  the  charge 
that  she  had  aided  stragglers  from  the 
Allied  armies  to  escape  across  the  fron- 
tier from  Belgium  to  Holland,  furnish- 
ing them  with  money,  clothing  and  in- 
formation concerning  the 'route  to  be  fol- 


Ravaged  Belgium 


157 


lowed,  Miss  Cavell  frankly  admitted 
that  not  only  had  she  helped  the  soldiers 
to  cross  the  frontier,  but  that  some  of 
them  had  written  her  from  England, 
thanking  her  for  her  assistance.  This 
last  admission  made  the  case  more  se- 
rious for  her,  because  if  it  had  been 
proved  only  that  she  had  helped  men  to 
cross  the  frontier  into  Holland,  she  could 
have  been  sentenced  only  for  a  violation 
of  the  passport  regulations,  and  not  the 
"crime"  of  assisting  soldiers  to  reach  a 
country  at  war  with  Germany. 

Q. — Was  it  right  to  call  her  a  spy? 

A. — No.  Technically,  under  remorse- 
less application  of  the  exceedingly  stern 
rules  of  war,  her  case  would  come  under 
the  general  definition  of  "war-espion- 
age." But  she  certainly  was  not  a  spy 
in  the  common  meaning  of  the  word. 
She  was  a  noble,  brave  woman,  whose 
name  will  ever  be  cherished. 

The  sentence  of  death  had  heretofore 
been  imposed  only  for  cases  of  actual 
espionage,  and  Miss  Cavell  was  not  ac- 
cused by  the  German  authorities  of  any- 
thing so  serious.  It  was  only  when  pub- 
lic opinion  had  been  aroused  by  her  exe- 
cution that  the  German  Government  be- 
gan to  refer  to  her  as  "the  spy  Cavell." 

At  5  o'clock  on  the  afternoon  of  Octo- 
ber I2th,  Miss  Cavell  was  sentenced  to 
be  shot  and  she  was  executed  before  day- 
break of  the  next  day. 

Q. — Was  any  effort  made  by  the 
American  Legation  to  stay  the 
execution  of  Miss  Cavell? 

A. — Yes.  As  the  American  Legation 
was  entrusted  with  the  British  interests 
in  the  occupied  portions  of  Belgium,  the 
American  Minister  and  his  staff  tried 
their  utmost  to  get  the  German  authori- 
ties to  agree  to  allow  the  legal  counselor 
of  the  Legation  to  consult  with  Miss 
Cavell  and,  if  desirable,  entrust  some- 
one with  her  defense.  This  was  not  al- 
lowed and,  although  frantic  efforts  were 
made  to  get  the  authorities  to  delay 
sentence,  nothing  could  be  accomplished. 

Q. — By  how  many  men  was  Liege 
defended? 

A. — About  20,000  Belgian  soldiers 
were  in  the  fortification  scheme  of  Liege, 
a  territory  of  about  thirty  miles. 

Q. — How  many  men  did  Belgium 
have  at  the  front  during  the  in- 
vasion of  her  country? 

A. — Belgium  had  probably  about  one 
hundred  thousand  men  at  the  front  dur- 
ing the  invasion. 


Q. — Did  Gladstone  ever  uphold  dis- 
regard of  treaties  ? 

A. — This  is  what  Mr.  Gladstone  said 
in  Parliament  in  1870:  "I  am  not  able 
to  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  of  those  who 
have  held  in  this  House  what  plainly 
amounts  to  an  assertion  that  the  simple 
fact  of  the  existence  of  a  guarantee  is 
binding  on  every  party  to  it,  irrespective 
altogether  of  the  particular  position  in 
which  it  may  find  itself  when  the  occa- 
sion for  acting  on  the  guarantee 
arises.  .  .  .  The  circumstance  that  there 
is  already  an  existing  guarantee  in  force 
is  of  necessity  an  important  fact  and  a 
weighty  element  in  the  case,  to  which  we 
are  bound  to  give  full  and  ample  consid- 
eration. There  is  also  this  further  con- 
sideration, the  force  of  which  we  all  feel 
most  deeply,  and  that  is,  the  common  in- 
terests against  the  unmeasured  aggran- 
disement of  any  power  whatsoever." 

Q. — What  are  The  Hague  Conven- 
tions ? 

A. — They  are  agreements  reached  be- 
tween nations  regarding  certain  interna- 
tional matters.  The  great  ones  are:  (l) 
A  convention  for  the  pacific  settlement 
of  international  conflicts.  (2)  A  conven- 
tion relative  to  the  recovery  of  contrac- 
tual debts.  (3)  A  convention  relative  to 
the  opening  of  hostilities.  (4)  A  con- 
vention concerning  the  laws  and  customs 
of  war  on  land.  (5)  A  convention  con- 
cerning the  rights  and  duties  of  neutral 
.States  and  individuals  in  land  warfare. 
(6)  A  convention  regarding  the  treatment 
of  the  enemy's  merchant  ships  at  the  out- 
break of  hostilities.  (7)  A  convention 
regarding  the  transformation  of  mer- 
chant ships  into  vessels  of  war.  (8)  A 
convention  in  regard  to  the  placing  of 
submarine  mines.  (9)  A  convention  con- 
cerning the  bombardment  of  undefended 
towns  by  naval  forces.  (10)  A  conven- 
tion for  the  adaptation  of  the  principles 
of  the  Geneva  convention  to  maritime 
warfare.  (11)  A  convention  imposing  cer- 
tain restrictions  upon  the  right  of^capture 
in  maritime  war.  (12)  A  convention  pro- 
viding for  the  establishment  of  an  in- 
ternational prize  court.  (13)  A  conven- 
tion defining  the  rights  and  duties  of 
neutral  States  in  maritime  war. 

Q.— Is  The  Hague  Tribunal  elected 
annually  ? 

A.— The  Hague  Tribunal  is  a  perman- 
ent court  of  arbitration  at  The  Hague, 
and  is  "competent  for  all  arbitrations, 
unless  the  parties  agree  to  institute  a 


158 


Questions  and  Answers 


special  tribunal."  Each  signatory  power 
selects  four  persons,  at  the  most,  whose 
tenure  is  six  years  and  whose  appoint- 
ments are  renewable.  When  it  is  de- 
sired to  have  recourse  to  arbitration 
under  The  Hague  convention,  a  special 
tribunal  is  selected  from  this  list.  The 
members  of  the  court  enjoy  diplomatic 
immunities.  The  United  States  was  the 
first  power  to  submit  a  case  to  The  Hague 
court.  This  was  the  Pius  Fund  case, 
with  Mexico. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  the  "scrap 
of  paper"? 

A. — On  August  4,  1914,  the  British  Am- 
bassador in  Berlin,  Sir  Edward  Goschen, 
justified  the  entrance  of  England  into  the 
war  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  Germany 
had  violated  the  neutrality  of  Belgium. 
In  his  dispatch  to  the  British  Govern- 
ment, he  reported  his  conversation  with 
the  German  Chancellor,  von  Bethmann- 
Hollweg,  who  said :  "Just  for  a  word — 
'neutrality,'  a  word  which  in  war-time 
had  so  often  been  disregarded — just  for 
a  scrap  of  paper  Great  Britain  was  go- 
ing to  make  war  on  a  kindred  nation." 

Q. — Was  the  "scrap  of  paper"  story 
ever  denied? 

A. — The  Committee  on  Public  Infor- 
mation (Washington)  says:  "When  the 
dispatch  was  published  by  the  British 
Government,  the  Associated  Press  cor-- 
respondent  obtained  an  interview  with 
the  German  Chancellor,  who  said  that 
Sir  Edward  Goschen  had  misunderstood 
what  he  had  said  about  the  scrap  of  paper. 
The  Chancellor  maintained  that  what  he 
had  said  was  that  England  entered  the. 
war  to  serve  her  interests ;  and  that 
among  her  motives  the  Belgian  neutrality 
treaty  'had  for  her  only  the  value  of  a 
scrap  of  paper.'" 

Q. — Did  Great  Britain  destroy  the 
Danish  Navy  in  time  of  peace? 

A. — The  British  fleet,  under  Nelson, 
bombarded  Copenhagen,  partially  de- 
stroyed the  Danish  fleet  then  at  anchor 
in  the  harbor,  and  took  possession  of  the 
rest. 

A.  Conan  Doyle,  writing  in  the  Fort- 
nightly Review  (February,  1913),  says 
of  this : 

"It  must  be  admitted  that  the  step  was 
an  extreme  one,  and  only  to  be  justified 


upon  the  plea  of  absolute  necessity  for 
vital  national  reasons.  The  British  Gov- 
ernment of  the  day  believed  that  Na- 
poleon was  about  to  possess  himself  of 
the  Danish  fleet  and  would  use  it  against 
themselves.  Fouche  has  admitted  in  his 
Memoirs  that  the  right  was,  indeed,  given 
by  a  secret  clause  in  the  Treaty  of  Tilsit. 
It  was  a  desperate  time,  when  the  strong- 
est measures  were  continually  being  used 
against  us,  and  it  may  be  urged  that  sim- 
ilar measures  were  necessary  in  self- 
defense.  Having  once  embarked  upon 
the  enterprise,  and  our  demand  being  re- 
fused, there  was  no  alternative  but  a 
bombardment  of  the  city  with  its  attend- 
ant loss  of  civilian  life.  It  is  not  an  ex- 
ploit of  which  we  need  be  proud,  and  at 
the  best  can  only  be  described  as  a  most 
painful  and  unfortunate  necessity,  but  I 
should  be  surprised  if  the  Danes,  on  look- 
ing back  to  it,  judge  it  more  harshly  than 
some  more  recent  experiences  which  they 
have  suffered  since  then  from  their  neigh- 
bors, the  Germans." 

Q. — Were  any  British  soldiers  in 
Belgium  before  the  Germans? 

A. — It  was  not  until  August  16,  1914, 
that  the  first  British  troops  reached  the 
Continent. 

Q. — Did  America  by  treaty  pledge 
herself  to  the  integrity  of 
Luxembourg  and  Belgium? 

A. — The  United  States  never  guaran- 
teed Belgium  or  Luxembourg.  She  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  Treaty 
of  London,  by  which,  in  1839,  Great  Brit- 
ain, France,  Prussia,  Russia,  and  Austria 
guaranteed  the  neutrality  of  Belgium.  In 
no  treaty  that  the  United  States  ever 
signed  has  it  in  any  way  undertaken  to 
guarantee  the  neutrality  of  any  European 
State.  It  is  often  asserted,  even  now,  that 
the  United  States  was,  in  some  way,  re- 
sponsible by  treaty  for  Belgium,  but  she 
had  no  more  responsibility  for  that  small 
kingdom  than  she  has  for  Russia,  France, 
Greece,  Bulgaria,  Serbia,  or  any  other 
country  in  Europe.  She  was,  it  is  true,  a 
signatory  of  The  Hague  Conventions, 
which,  in  general  terms  reaffirmed  the  in- 
violability of  neutrals  in  war  time,  but  in 
signing  these  she  specifically  declared  that 
nothing  in  the  Conventions  should  be 
binding  on  her  if  it  involved  a  violation 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  or  would  em- 
broil her  in  European  conflagrations. 


LITHUANIANS  AND  POLES 


Q. — Are  the  people  of  Courland, 
Livonia  and  Esthonia  not 
Slavs? 

A. — They  are  not.  They  are  of  a  very 
distinct  racial  stock  known  as  Letts.  The 
Lettish  people  claim  that  they  are  among 
the  oldest  races  of  Europe,  and  there  is 
foundation  for  this  assertion.  Ethnology 
finds  that  distinct  Lettish  characteristics 
(language,  folk-lore,  physical  traits,  etc.) 
justify  the  supposition  that  the  Lettish 
racial  history  goes  back  four  or  even  five 
thousand  years. 

Q. — Does  this  fact  bear  on  the 
modern  political  situation? 

A. — Yes.  It  was  used  by  the  Pan-Ger- 
mans in  their  arguments  to  show  why  the 
Baltic  Sea  provinces  were  not  truly  a  part 
of  Russia — with  the  deduction,  as  the  Pan- 
Germans  saw  it,  that,  therefore,  they 
might  "naturally"  be  made  a  part  of  Ger- 
many. The  Germans  did  once  rule  them 
— very  long  ago. 

Q. — Why  should  Germany  desire 
the  provinces? 

A. — Largely  because  they  contain  the 
very  useful  seaport  of  Riga.  In  addition, 
the  coast-line  extends  to  the  eastern  end 
of  the  Baltic,  and  thus  would  round  out 
German  possession  of  the  whole  Baltic 
coast.  Beyond  this,  their  hold  would  thus 
extend  to  the  mouth  of  the  Gulf  of  Fin- 
land, commanding  the  approach  to  Petro- 
grad. 

Q. — Has  Russia  always  owned  the 
Baltic  Sea  territory? 

A. — No.  Lithuania  belonged  to  Poland 
once.  Russia  obtained  it  in  the  Polish 
dismemberments  during  the  eighteenth 
century. 

Q. — Were  the  Baltic  provinces  ever 
independent? 

A. — Only  in  a  very  general  sense.  They 
formed  one  state,  Livonia,  but  in  one  way 
or  another  it  was  always  ruled  or  tribu- 
tary. 

In  1561  the  state  was  finally  broken  up, 
part  (now  belonging  to  the  Russian  prov- 
ince of  Vitebsk)  being  annexed  to  Poland, 
part  (Livonia  and  Esthonia)  being  ap- 
propriated by  Sweden,  and  part  (Cour- 


land) being  constituted  as  a  duchy  under 
the  suzerainty  of  the  King  of  Poland. 
Thus,  though  the  population  remained 
very  independent  ethnologically,  and  still 
is  composed  of  Letts  and  Esthonians, 
races  of  Finno-Lithuanian  origin,  the  rul- 
ers were  always  aliens,  ending  with  the 
Russians. 

The  Germans  ruled  the  Baltic  coun- 
tries the  longest  and  impressed  themselves 
upon  their  culture  most  permanently  of 
all.  They  came  there  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  first  as  colonists  and  then  in  the 
garb  of  "Brothers  of  the  Sword,"  a  re- 
ligious order  created  after  the  manner 
of  the  Teutonic  Knights,  as  conquerors, 
followed  by  German  merchants  and  arti- 
zans.  All  the  chief  cities — Riga,  Reval, 
Dorpat — were  founded  by  them,  and 
Christianity  was  introduced. 

Q. — Did  Russia  ever  charge  the 
provinces  with  being  pro-Ger- 
man? 

A. — Such  charges  were  made,  more  or 
less  vaguely,  early  in  the  war.  The  fun- 
damental truth  was,  probably,  that  the 
Lithuanians  were  not  very  enthusiastic  in 
their  support  of  Russia.  In  addition, 
there  was  a  very  large  population  that 
was  German-born  or  of  German  blood. 
Riga  was  full  of  German  merchants,  and 
its  commercial  and  industrial  activity  had 
a  decidedly  German  quality.  It  is,  how- 
ever, unlikely  that  the  Lithuanians  are 
inclined  to  become  German.  They  are  a 
race  (or  small  nation)  with  powerful  as- 
pirations for  political  entity  of  their  own. 

Q. — Was  Poland  ever  a  very  large 
nation? 

A. — At  the  beginning  of  the  Reforma- 
tion in  Europe  (Luther's  time,  1483-1536), 
the  area  of  Poland  was  greater  than  that 
of  Germany  proper;  that  is,  excluding 
the  various  Italian  and  Austrian  portions 
of  the  Empire.  The  Poles  were  then,  and 
remained  for  many  generations,  the  most 
•warlike  nation  in  Europe  in  many  senses, 
•wonderfully  brave,  marvelously  skilled  in 
dashing  warfare,  particularly  with  cavalry, 
and  extremely  restless  and  fiery. 

At  one  time  their  rulership  extended 
from  the  Baltic  to  the  Black  Sea.  They 
held  Livonia,  Esthonia  and  Courland  on 
the  Baltic,  and  Galicia  on  the  Hungarian 
border,  with  such  cities  as  Lemberg.  They 
conquered  a  large  part  of  the  Ukraine, 
threatening  the  Tartars  of  the  Crimea. 


159 


i6o 


Questions  and  Anszvers 


Incessant  wars  with  the  Cossacks  of  the 
Black  Sea  and  the  Don  and  with  the  Tar- 
tars did  much  to  sap  their  national 
strength. 

Q. — When  was  Poland  broken  up? 

A. — Its  downfall  may  be  said  to  have 
begun  when  the  Swedes  and  Russians 
broke  into  it  in  1654  and  conquered  it.  Its 
final  doom  came  when  continual  wars 
ended  in  the  famous  agreement  between 
Catherine  II  of  Russia,  Frederick  II  of 
Prussia,  and  Maria  Theresa  of  Austria  to 
dismember  the  kingdom. 

From  that  time  Poland  became  subject 
to  successive  partitions.  Between  1772 
and  1795  it  was  thus  divided  and  sub-di- 
vided, till  Russia  had  all  Lithuania,  Prus- 
sia had  what  is  now  West  Prussia  and 
Posen,  and  Austria  had  Galicia. 

In  1815,  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna, 
there  was  a  new  partition  by  which  Rus- 
sia got  the  greater  part  of  Poland.  The 
Poles  have  rebelled  several  times  (twice 
in  the  last  century,  1830  and  1863),  but 
their  efforts  were  unsuccessful. 

Q. — Was  there  a  Duchy  of  War- 
saw? 

A. — Yes.  After  the  eighteenth-century 
partitions,  there  still  remained  a  "free 
Poland" — a  small  strip  of  land  around 
Warsaw.  With  the  fall  of  Napoleon  and 
the  Congress  of  Vienna,  the  freedom  of 
the  Duchy  of  Warsaw  was  guaranteed 
under  the  protection  of  Russia,  but  after 
the  revolt  of  1830,  it  was  formally  an- 
nexed and  ruled  from  Petrograd.  There 
have  been  many  tumultuous  days  in  War- 
saw since.  The  "loyalty"  of  Poland  in 
time  of  war  has  always  been  in  question, 
for  the  Poles  have  always  declared  that 
they  will  be  content  with  nothing  short 
of  a  constitutional  government  of  their 


Q. — Did  wars  alone  cause  Poland's 
downfall  ? 

A. — No.  Its  own  inherent  weaknesses 
were  great  factors.  It  was  in  the  tyran- 
nical grip  of  an  aristocracy,  consisting  of 
nobles  and  a  turbulent  gentry.  The  serfs 
were  reduced  to  the  lowest  position  of 
any  in  Europe.  The  Diet  or  Parliament, 
which  elected  the  King,  often  refused  to 
grant  the  revenues  and  armies  necessary 
for  the  public  defense.  A  peculiar  privi- 
lege, known  as  the  liberum  veto,  by  which 
any  measure  could  be  defeated  by  a  single 
objecting  voice,  brought  the  legislature, 
as  well  as  the  monarchy,  to  a  state  of  im- 
potence. "The  road  to  Warsaw"  became 


a  byword  in  Europe  for  "the  road  to  na- 
tional ruin." 

Q. — What  are  the  Ukrainians? 

A. — "Ukraine"  means  border-land.  The 
Ukrainians  are  known  as  Little  Rus- 
sians in  Russia  and  as  Ruthenians  in  Aus- 
tria and  Hungary.  There  are  about  34,- 
500,000,  distributed  as  follows :  southern 
Russia,  28,000,000;  rest  of  European  and 
Asiatic  Russia,  2,000,000;  Galicia,  3,500,- 
ooo;  Hungary,  500,000;  Bukowina,  400,- 
ooo. 

The  Ukrainians  have  asserted  their 
right  to  independent  existence  for  cen- 
turies. They  claim  that  they  own  the 
land  from  the  Carpathians  to  the  Cau- 
casus, extending  well  northward  into 
Russia,  including  parts  of  Russian  and 
Austrian  Galicia  and  parts  of  what  is 
known  as  Russian  Poland. 

They  assert  that  the  first  alienation  of 
territory  occurred  when  the  Poles  con- 
quered all  western  Russia  from  the  Bal- 
tic to  the  Black  Sea.  Later,  when  the 
Poles  were  conquered  in  turn  by  the  Rus- 
sians, the  Ukrainians  became  subject  to 
Russia,  but  they  have  never  lost  their 
racial  sense. 

The  country  they  claim  is  said  to  be 
the  richest  agricultural  territory  in  the 
world.  It  contains  the  famous  "black- 
earth  belt"  that  stretches  from  the  Car- 
pathians to  the  Urals.  Kiev  and  Odessa 
are  among  the  big  cities  that  are  in  this 
claimed  territory. 

Q. — Does  the  Ukrainian  claim  fall 
under  the  principle  of  self-de- 
termination ? 

A. — It  does.  But  it  is  vastly  compli- 
cated because  of  the  political  fissures  be- 
tween the  people  themselves.  Thus,  the 
extreme  Ukrainians  claim  that  all  Rus- 
sian Poland  reaching  to  and  beyond  Brest- 
Litovsk  is  properly  part  of  the  Ukraine. 
But  the  Poles  also  claim  this  territory 
as  distinctly  part  of  their  nationality.  In 
addition,  the  Ukrainian  feeling  is  strong- 
est among  the  peasants,  while  the  land- 
holders, the  nobles  and  the  middle-classes 
are  largely  Polish  in  birth,  political-na- 
tional affiliation,  or  both. 

Q. — Who  are  the  Cossacks? 

A. — They  were  roving  brigands  who  in- 
habited what  is  now  known  as  the 
Ukraine.  Hunters  and  fishermen  origi- 
nally, the  encroaching  Turks  and  Tar- 
tars compelled  them  to  take  to  arms  to 
protect  themselves.  Later,  becoming 
stronger,  they  carried  the  war  into  their 


Lithuanians  and  Poles 


161 


enemies'  country,  and  harried  them,  car- 
ried on,  indeed,  a  war  of  extermination. 
Curiously  enough,  they  borrowed  their 
name  from  the  lower  ranks  of  Tartar 
soldiery  called  Kasaki,  a  word  meaning 
freebooters.  The  success  of  their  raids 
induced  them  to  go  further  afield,  and, 
in  time,  they  became  dangerous  to  the 
settled  western  lands  they  should  have 
protected  from  Turkish  inroads. 

Q. — Where    did   they   come   from 
originally  ? 

A. — When  Lublin  and  Lithuania  were 
incorporated  in  Poland,  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  many  serfs  migrated  from  these 
provinces  to  escape  the  heavy  taxes  and 
the  cruel  rule  of  the  Polish  nobles.  They 
settled  along  the  Dnieper,  and  spread,  in 
time,  eastwards  to  the  Don,  On  the 
former  river  they  set  up  a  sort  of  com- 
monwealth, nominally  under  Polish  dom- 
ination. However,  the  relations  between 
the  Cossacks  and  the  Poles  were  often 
strained,  and  finally  religious  differences 
led  to  open  fighting.  The  Poles  were, 
and  are,  Roman  Catholics,  and  the  Cos- 
sacks profess  the  Orthodox  religion. 
This,  at  first,  led  to  the  loss  of  all  the 
privileges  the  Cossacks  had  enjoyed.  But, 
later,  leagued  with  their  old  enemies,  the 
Tartars,  they  defeated  the  Poles  and  es- 
tablished a  brief  independence.  Finally 
they  and  their  lands  were  incorporated  in 
Muscovy,  and  they  have  been  Russian 
ever  since. 

Q. — Do  the  Cossacks  have  special 
privileges  ? 

A. — They  still  enjoy  some  of  the  privi- 
leges which  were  granted  them  when  the 
migration  from  Lithuania  took  place.  In 
return  for  these  they  are  bound  to  give 
military  service  to  the  State  for  twenty 
years.  They  are  scattered  in  ten  sepa- 
rate districts,  the  most  notable  lying 
along  the  Don,  the  home  of  the  Don 
Cossacks,  who  have  played  so  prominent 
a  part  in  Russian  affairs  since  the  Revo- 
lution. The  Cossacks  live  in  loosely  co- 
operative communities,  which  own  land 
given  by  the  government.  The  primary 
unit  is  the  stahitza,  or  village,  which  holds 
the  land  as  a  commune.  These  village 
communities  elect  assemblymen,  who  di- 
rect communal  cultivation,  education,  and 
the  like.  The  villagers  appoint  a  supreme 
elder,  and  judges,  who  settle  all  minor 
disputes. 

Q. — What  kind  of  military  service 
must  they  render? 

A. — Every  man  must  serve  as  a  soldier 
from  18  to  38.  For  the  first  three  years 


he  undergoes  training,  for  the  next  twelve 
he  is  on  active  service,  and  for  the  last 
five  he  is  in  the  reserve.  In  times  of 
peace,  actually  only  about  a  third  are  on 
active  service,  and  two-thirds  remain  at 
home.  When  war  breaks  out,  however, 
all  join  the  army  at  once.  Every  Cossack 
must  provide  his  own  uniform,  equipment 
and  horse.  The  State  gives  the  weaponi. 

Q. — Are  there  many  Cossacks? 

A. — Over  three  million  (half  women). 
They  put  between  300,000  and  400,000 
trained  soldiers  into  the  field.  All  of 
them  live  on  the  land.  They  lease  their 
mines  to  outsiders,  who  also  run  most  of 
the  factories  in  their  territories. 

Q. — Are  all  Cossacks  cavalrymen? 

A. — Most  of  them  are,  only  about  20,000 
infantry  being  supplied  by  them.  It  is 
a  common  practice  to  call  all  Russian 
mounted  men  Cossacks,  but  it  is  incor- 
rect. 

Q. — Was  Finland  always  Russian? 

A. — Finland  was  a  free  country  from 
its  foundation  (about  eighth  century)  to 
1293,  when  Sweden  conquered  it.  In  1809 
it  was  "united"  to  Russia,  but  it  retained 
its  Constitution  and  National  Assembly 
until  at  a  favorable  moment,  in  1899, 
Nicholas  declared  it  wholly  a  part  of  the 
central  government.  Finland  protested  to 
the  Great  Powers  that  the  act  was  a  viola- 
tion of  its  rights,  but  received  no  aid.  At 
the  time  of  the  Japanese  war,  a  general 
strike  by  all  the  laborers  forced  the  gov- 
ernment to  grant  demands  for  a  constitu- 
tional assembly.  After  the  crisis  had 
passed,  the  assembly  became  a  mere  fig- 
urehead again. 

The  Finns,  not  being  Slavic  but  allies 
in  racial  stock  to  the  Magyars  (both  of 
Asiatic  origin),  never  were  willing  to  re- 
main Russian.  Soon  after  the  Russian 
Revolution  they  proclaimed  their  inde- 
pendence, but  the  Russian  Provincial 
government  under  Kerensky  would  not 
acknowledge  it,  holding  that  it  was  a  mat- 
ter for  the  Russian  National  Assembly 
to  decide. 

Q. — Was  Finland's  subjection  due 
to  Pan-Slavism? 

A. — The  incorporation  of  Finland  and 
Poland  both  were  part  of  the  general 
movement  of  "Russification" ;  and  an  at- 
tempt to  suppress  racial  differences  and 
form  one  language,  one  church,  and  one 
government.  In  its  wider  aspect,  it  is 
called  Pan-Slavism  and  includes  ftie  Slav 
races  of  the  States  in  the  Balkans.  It  first 


1 62 


Questions  and  Answers 


appeared  violently  on  the  accession  of 
Alexander  III  to  the*  throne  in  1881. 
The  Russian  Czar,  like  the  former  Popes 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  world,  united  in 
himself  the  rule  of  the  Greek  (Slav)  Cath- 
olic Church  and  the  temporal  power  over 
the  vast  areas  of  the  Russian  Empire. 

Q. — Does  Germany  compel  the 
Poles  in  Poland  to  speak  Ger- 
man? 

A.— It  has  been  reported  that  she  has 
done  so,  but  the  Germans  have  apparently 
tried  to  conciliate  the  Poles,  and  have 
promised  them  autonomy  and  control  of 
their  internal  affairs.  In  pursuance  of 
this  policy  no  tribute  appears  to  have 
been  levied  on  any  of  the  Polish  towns 
captured. 

The  Germans  tried  to  make  the  Poles 
in  the  Polish  provinces  of  Prussia  speak 
German,  and  even  went  so  far  as  to  pun- 
ish school  children  who  went  on  strike 
because  they  were  compelled  to  learn 
their  lessons  in  German. 

The  Russians  have  also  systematically 
tried  to  stamp  out  the  Polish  language. 

Q. — Are  there  many  people  in  the 
Baltic  provinces? 

A. — Esthonia  has  an  area  of  7,600 
square  miles,  with  an  estimated  popula- 


tion of  some  half  a  million ;  Livonia,  the 
largest  of  the  three  provinces,  has  an 
area  of  17,500  square  miles,  with  a  popu- 
lation of  close  upon  2,000,000 ;  and  Cour- 
land  has  an  area  of  nearly  10,500  square 
miles,  with  a  population  of  about  800,- 
ooo.  The  population  is  divided  into  Esthi 
or  Esthonians,  and  Letts.  There  is  a 
percentage  of  Germans.  The  remainder 
of  the  population  in  the  three  provinces 
is  made  up  of  fragments  of  Finns,  Rus- 
sians, Jews,  and  Lithuanians. 

The  farmers  are,  for  the  most  part, 
proprietors  of  very  small  parcels  of  land, 
the  inadequacy  of  which  compels  them  to 
do  additional  work  for  the  German  land- 
owner as  hired  laborer  or  rent  some  ad- 
ditional land  from  him  on  the  metayer 
system. 

Q. — To  what  race  do  the  Galicians 
belong? 

A. — There  are  two  distinct  racial 
strains  in  Galicia,  both  Slavonic — the 
Poles  and  the  Ruthenians.  These  peo- 
ple differ  temperamentally,  historically 
and  in  religion,  the  Poles  being  generally 
Roman  Catholics,  the  Ruthenians  Greek 
Catholics.  In  the  world  war  the  Polish 
Galicians,  for  the  most  part,  are  pro-Aus- 
trian, while  the  Ruthenian  sympathies 
lean  toward  the  Russians. 


CLAMORING  NATIONALITIES 


Q. — What  were  President  Wilson's 
peace  principles  affecting  small 
nationalities  ? 

A. — They  were  four  clauses  laid  down 
by  the  President  in  a  Message  to  Con- 
gress, delivered  February  n,  1918,  and 
they  expressed  the  following: 

1.  Each    part   of    the    final    settlement 
must  be  based  upon  the  essential  justice 
of    that   particular   case,   and   upon    such 
adjustments    as    are    the    most    likely    to 
bring  a  peace  that  will  be  permanent. 

2.  Peoples    and    provinces    are   not   to 
be    bartered    about    from    sovereignty   to 
sovereignty,  as  if  they  were  mere  chattels 
and    pawns    in    a   game,    even    the   great 
game,  now  forever  discredited,  of  the  bal- 
ance of  power;  but  that, 

3.  Every     territorial     settlement     in- 
volved in  this  war  must  be  made  in  the 
interest  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  popu- 
lations concerned,  and  not  as  a.  part  of 
any  mere  adjustment  or  compromise  of 
claims  among  rival  States ;  and 

4.  All  well-defined  national  aspirations 
shall  be  accorded  the  utmost  satisfaction 
that   can   be   accorded   them   without   in- 
troducing  new   or    perpetuating   old   ele- 
ments   of    discord    and    antagonism    that 
would    be    likely    in    time    to    break    the 
peace  of  Europe,  and,  consequently,  of  the 
world. 

Q. — How  many  small  republics 
have  been  declared  in  Russia? 

A. — Up  to  March,  1918,  three  had  de- 
clared themselves,  and  had  made  their 
declarations  good  by  taking  definite  steps 
toward  organization  and  toward  foreign 
recognition.  From  half  a  dozen  to  a 
dozen  other  movements  had  either  begun 
or  were  struggling  along.  Of  these,  the 
most  important  were  the  separatist  move- 
ments of  the  Cossacks  of  the  Don,  and 
of  the  trans-Caucasus  and  Siberian  prov- 
inces. 

The  three  really  important  and  decis- 
ive ones  that  played  a  big  part  in  the 
settlement  of  peace  terms,  were  the 
Ukraine,  Finland  and  Lithuania. 

Q. — When  were  the  Russian  re- 
publics proclaimed? 

A. — The  Ukrainian  republic  was  pro- 
claimed by  the  Central  Parliament 
(Rada)  on  Nov.  20,  1917,  and  was  rec- 
ognized at  the  Brest-Litovsk  peace  ne- 


gotiations. The  same  important  step  was 
taken  by  Finland,  which  formally  de- 
clared its  independence  as  a  republic  on 
Dec.  5,  1917,  and  was  recognized  by  Nor- 
way and  Sweden.  Lithuania  formally 
declared  its  independence  of  Russia  on 
Jan.  8,  1918. 

Q. — Did    other   nations    recognize 
the  new  republics? 

A. — No.  They  remained  non-commit- 
tal. In  February,  1918,  the  Supreme  Na- 
tional Council  of  Lithuania  in  Switzer- 
land presented  to  the  representatives  of 
all  neutral  and  belligerent  nations  a  reso- 
lution adopted  by  the  Vilna  State  Coun- 
cil, proclaiming  the  re-establishment  of 
the  independent  status  of  Lithuania,  with 
Vilna  as  its  capital,  but  there  was  no  re- 
sponse up  to  the  time  of  Russia's  sign- 
ing of  the  peace  treaty. 

Q. — Did   Petrograd  recognize   the 
Ukraine  republic? 

A. — No.  Both  the  Kerensky  and  the 
Lenine-Trotzky  revolutionary  govern- 
ments refused  to  recognize  an  independ- 
ent Ukraine,  an  independent  Finland,  or 
independent  Lithuanian  States.  They 
sent  troops  to  Finland  and  the  Ukraine. 
The  Lenine-Trotzky  Government  ordered 
war  on  the  Ukraine,  and  continued  hos- 
tilities till  they  themselves  signed  a  treaty 
of  peace  with  the  Central  Powers  and 
therein  bound  themselves  to  recognize 
the  new  republics. 

Q. — Why  did  the   Bolsheviki  op- 
pose the  Ukrainians? 

A. — The  Bolsheviki  claimed  that  the 
party  in  the  Ukraine  that  had  proclaimed 
independence  was  a  party  composed  of 
the  bourgeois  population ;  and,  as  the  Bol- 
sheviki plan  for  Russia  was  to  make  it 
a  republic  of  the  proletariat,  an  attempt 
by  the  bourgeois  to  assert  independence 
•was  just  as  obnoxious  to  them  (and 
quite  logically  so)  as  if  the  old  aristoc- 
racy had  attempted  a  counter-revolution 
in  Russia.  In  fact,  the  "counter-revolu- 
tion" feared  by  the  Bolsheviki  is  essen- 
tially a  counter-revolution  by  the  bour- 
geois. If  the  Russian  question  were  a  per- 
fectly clear-cut  issue  between  aristocracy 
and  common  people,  the  situation  would 
be  very  simple.  We  would  then  have 
seen  much  less  of  these  apparently  con- 
tradictory actions. 


163 


164 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  is  the  correct  name  of 
the  Ukraine  republic? 

A. — The  new  republic  has  called  itself 
the  Ukraine  People's  Republic.  The  re- 
public was  first  declared  by  the  Rada,  or 
national  assembly,  called  by  the  Ukraine 
people.  Subsequent  to  declaring  them- 
selves an  independent  state,  the  Ukrain- 
ians proceeded  to  conduct  separate  peace 
negotiations  with  the  Central  Powers, 
after  the  Russian  Bolsheviki  Government 
had  broken  off  the  first  Russian  negotia- 
tions. 

Q. — How  big  is  the  Ukraine  re- 
public? 

A. — It  is  a  very  big  country,  indeed, 
but  its  exact  area  had  not  been  officially 
outlined  when  the  treaty  of  peace  was 
made.  It  is  known,  however,  that  it  was 
the  hope  of  the  Ukrainian  Rada  to  take 
in  all  the  Ukrainian  races  and  sub-races', 
and  that  this  hope,  if  realized,  would  ex- 
tend the  new  republic  to  the  land  of  the 
Don  Cossacks — as  far  east  as  the  Cau- 
casus, almost.  Northward,  it  was  de- 
sired to  go  as  far  as  Brest-Litovsk,  and 
even  beyond,  but  the  Poles  immediately 
raised  such  a  clamor  that  it  was  decided 
to  settle  that  part  of  the  frontier  later. 
With  the  exception  of  Bessarabia  on  the 
west  and  what  remains  to  Russia  of  the 
Caucasus  on  the  east,  this  republic  quite 
cuts  the  rest  of  Russia  from  the  Black 
Sea.  • 

Q. — When  was  the  Ukraine  peace 
treaty  signed? 

A. — It  was  signed  in  February,  1918,  at 
Brest-Litovsk,  with  all  the  Central  Pow- 
ers. It  provided  for  a  peace  without  in- 
demnities, and  appointed  a  general  west- 
ern boundary  for  such  part  of  the  new 
republic  as  did  not  border  on  Austria- 
Hungary.  As  the  northern  limit  of  the 
western  boundary  runs  into  territory 
claimed  by  Poland,  it  was  decided  to 
leave  its  exact  settlement  to  a  commis- 
sion. 

Q. — What  can  the  Ukraine  give  to 
Germany? 

A.— Wheat,  rye,  barley,  sugar  (beet), 
meat  of  all  kinds,  iron,  manganese,  mer- 
cury, timber. 

The  Ukraine  is  the  granary  of  Europe, 
despite  the  very  easy-going  and  anti- 
quated methods  that  obtain  through  a 
large  part  of  its  territory.  Its  output  of 
wheat,  rye  and  barley  alone  is  one-third 
of  that  produced  by  all  Russia.  It  has 


amounted  in  previous  years  to  about  35 
million  pounds. 

Q. — How  soon  could  Germany 
draw  wheat  from  the  Ukraine? 

A. — Of  course,  the  crops  are  available 
only  when  the  time  of  harvest  comes. 
But  it  is  well  known  that  big  stores  were 
held  there  when  the  war  began.  One  of 
the  big  reasons  for  the  desperate 
Dardanelles  enterprise  was  to  open  the 
straits  and  thus  free  the  wheat  crop, 
•which  would  have  fed  the  Allies  and  paid 
part  of  Russia's  debts.  How  much  of  this 
is  left  and  what  condition  it  is  in,  is  not 
•well  known.  But  there  assuredly  must 
have  been  some  available  when  the 
Ukraine  signed  the  peace  treaty,  for  the 
Bolsheviki  had  been  clamoring  for  a  re- 
lease of  it  for  themselves. 

A  more  immediate  help  is  the  meat 
which  the  Ukraine  can  furnish.  Before 
the  war  the  immense  plains  supported 
about  30  million  cattle. 

Q. — Where  is  the  Lithuanian  re- 
public? 

A. — It  extends  from  Baltic  Russia 
southward,  expanding  in  the  south  to  ex- 
tend well  into  Russia.  The  area  of  the 
republic  forms  a  sort  of  cushion  around 
the  north  and  east  of  Poland,  separating 
it  from  what  is  left  of  Russia  with  a 
belt  about  300  to  400  miles  wide.  It  con- 
tains the  four  provinces  of  Kovno,  Vilna, 
Minsk  and  Grodno. 

Q. — About  how  big  is  this  new  re- 
public? 

A. — It  contains  about  82,000  square 
miles  (about  one-third  larger  than  New 
England),  and  it  has  about  9  million  pop- 
ulation (which  is  also  about  one-third 
more  than  New  England). 

Q. — Does  the  Republic  of  Lithu- 
ania include  the  Baltic  prov- 
inces? 

A. — No.  These  were  mentioned  sepa- 
rately in  the  peace  treaty  between  the 
Russians  and  the  Central  Powers.  They 
•were  referred  to  as  the  States  of  Esthonia 
and  Livonia. 

Q. — What  did  the  peace  treaty  say 
about  the  Baltic  Sea  prov- 
inces? 

A. — There  was  a  specific  agreement  as 
to  the  eastern  boundaries  o^f  both  Es- 
thonia and  Livonia,  and  Russia  agreed  to 


Clamoring  Nationalities 


165 


evacuate  them,  while  they  were  to  be  oc- 
cupied by  "a  German  police  force  until 
security  is  guaranteed  by  their  own  na- 
tional institutions." 

Q.— What  is  the  State  of  Esthonia? 

A. — It  is  one  of  the  Russian  Baltic 
Sea  provinces  inhabited  by  Letts  and  Li- 
thuanians. These  provinces  run  as  fol- 
lows, from  west  to  east:  (i)  Courland, 
adjoining  Germany,  and  containing  the 
ports  Libau  and  Riga;  (2)  Livonia,  tak- 
ing in  the  Gulf  of  Riga  or  part  of  it:  (3) 
Esthonia,  facing  the  Gulf  of  Finland,  and 
extending  toward  Petrograd. 

Q. — Did  the  treaty  of  peace  make 
new  boundaries? 

A. — Apparently  the  treaty  did  not  es- 
tablish any  very  radically  changed  boun- 
daries ;  but,  of  course,  the  radical  change 
was  that  the  treaty  did  accept  the  prin- 
ciple that  Livonia  and  Esthonia  were  to 
be  separated  from  Russia. 

Q. — Was  Courland  not  mentioned 
in  the  treaty? 

A. — No,  Courland  was  not  mentioned, 
but  there  has  long  been  a  custom  of  re- 
ferring to  all  three  Baltic  Sea  Provinces 
under  the  general  title  "Livonia." 

Q. — What  presumably  is  the  size 
of  the  Baltic  Sea  territory? 

A. — The  three  Baltic  Sea  provinces — 
Courland,  Livonia  and  Esthonia — thus 
separated  from  Russia,  had,  under  the  old 
subdivision  in  Russian  Government  ap- 
portionment, an  area  of  36,000  square 
miles — that  is,  they  would  compare  about 
with  Indiana  in  area.  Their  population 
is  more  dense  than  Indiana,  being  about 
3  million. 

Q. — Is    the    Dobrudja    a    Balkan 
State? 

A. — No.  It  is  merely  a  geographical 
area.  The  racial  character  of  its  very 
small  population  plays  no  part  in  the 
contest  over  this  territory.  Its  value  is 
due  to  its  position  on  the  Black  Sea,  and 
because  the  great  commercial  river  of 
Europe,  the  Danube,  empties  through  the 
Dobrudja  into  the  Black  Sea  in  a  vast 
system  of  spreading  deltas. 

Q. — Just  where  is  the  Dobrudja? 

A. — It  extends  along  the  western  part 
of  the  Black  Sea,  from  the  Bulgarian 
boundary  northward  to  the  mouths  of 


the  Danube.  It  is  entirely  coastal,  and, 
in  a  straight  line,  its  Black  Sea  coast 
measures  about  200  miles.  It  thus  rep- 
resented the  entire  Black  Sea  coast  of 
Roumania. 

Q. — Who  owns  the  Dobrudja  now? 

A. — The  Central  Powers  held  it  by  con- 
quest until  early  in  March,  1918,  it  hav- 
ing fallen  into  their  hands  when  they  de- 
feated and  over-ran  Roumania.  In 
March,  1918,  the  Dobrudja  passed  to  the 
Central  Powers  by  cession,  Roumania 
having  signed  a  peace  with  them  which 
gave  them  this  territory  as  far  as  the 
Danube.  That  means  all  of  it  worth 
having. 

Q. — Did  the  Central  Powers  assert 
any  right  except  conquest? 

A.— Yes.  The  claim  to  the  Dobrudja 
was  based  on  Bulgaria's  claim  to  the 
southern  part  of  it.  Bulgaria  owned  this 
once,  and  lost  it  in  the  second  Balkan 
War,  when  Roumania  annexed  this  north- 
eastern corner  of  Bulgaria,  which  she  had 
long  desired. 

Q. — Does  the  loss  of  the  Dobrudja 
shut  Roumania  from  the  Black 
Sea? 

A. — Geographically,  it  shuts  Roumania 
entirely  off  from  the  Black  Sea,  except 
for  such  trifling  access  as  she  could  have 
through  that  part  of  Dobrudja  north  of 
the  Danube,  which  remains  to  her.  The 
deltas  of  the  Danube,  however,  make  all 
that  territory  swampy  and  difficult.  The 
terms  of  peace,  however,  provide  that 
"ihe  Quadruple  Alliance  will  provide  and 
maintain  a  trade  route  for  Roumania  by 
way  of  Constanza  to  the  Black  Sea." 

Q. — Where  is  Constanza? 

A. — It  is  the  best  and  biggest  port  on 
the  Dobrudja  Black  Sea  coast,  and  is 
situated  about  in  the  middle  of  that  coast 
line.  A  railroad  connects  it  with  the 
various  important  Roumanian  places  and 
cities. 

Q. — Does  the  Danube  run  through 
Roumania? 

A. — Yes.  After  the  Danube  leaves  the 
Austria-Hungarian  boundary,  it  runs  for 
a  great  distance  along  the  Roumanian  and 
Bulgarian  boundary  (in  fact,  forming 
the  boundary),  and  then  it  swings  sharply 
north  through  Roumania,  running  along 
the  western  side  of  the  Dobrudja  terri- 


i66 


Questions  and  Answers 


tory.  It  runs  almost  into  Russia,  but  at 
the  northern  Roumanian  territory  it  turns 
sharply  eastward  and  empties  in  the 
Black  Sea. 

Q. — Will  Roumania  have  access  to 
the  mouth  of  the  Danube? 

A. — She  can  hardly  be  shut  off  from 
using  it,  though  she  may  be  limited  in  her 
enjoyment  of  it.  Under  the  arrangement 
that  was  in  force  before  the  war,  all  that 
part  of  the  Danube  from  the  deltas  to  the 
Roumanian  cities  of  Braila  and  Galatz 
was  under  an  international  commission 
(Great  Britain,  Austria-Hungary,  France, 
Germany,  Italy,  Roumania,  Russia  and 
Turkey),  which  improved  and  maintained 
it. 

Q. — What  altogether  did  Rouma- 
nia surrender  by  the  peace 
treaty? 

A. — Besides  the  Dobrudja,  Roumania 
agreed  by  the  peace  treaty  of  March, 
1918,  to  permit  "frontier  rectifications" 
between  her  boundary  and  that  of  Aus- 
tria-Hungary. There  were  no  indemni- 
ties and  no  other  exactions  of  territory. 

Q. — How  much  area  did  Roumania 
take  from  Bulgaria  originally? 

A. — Almost  3,000  square  miles,  with  a 
population  of  about  300,000,  most  of 
whom  were  Turkish. 

Q. — How  much  population  has  the 
whole  Dobrudja? 

A. — This  one  of  the  four  historic  di- 
visions of  Roumania  contains  about  381,- 
ooo  people  altogether,  with  Roumanians 
greatly  in  the  minority.  The  population 
is  mostly  Turkish,  Bulgarian,  Tartar, 
Russian,  and  a  fair  sprinkling  of  Ger- 
man. 

Q. — Did  Roumania  sign  another 
treaty  of  peace? 

A. — Yes.  A  few  days  after  signing  a 
treaty  with  the  Central  Powers,  Roumania 
made  peace  with  Russia,  promising  to 
evacuate  all  the  occupied  parts  of  Bes- 
sarabia, and  agreeing  that  an  international 
commission  was  to  "take  up  points  of 
conflict  between  the  two  countries,"  which 
was  construed  to  mean  that  there  was  to 
be  a  discussion  of  division  of  Bessarabian 
territory. 


Q. — How    did    Sweden    lose    Fin- 
land? 

A.— -As  a  result  of  many  wars  with 
Russia.  She  was  forced  to  cede  the 
Grand  Duchy  of  Finland  to  the  Czar  in 
1809.  Though  Russia  had  promised  to 
respect  the  free  institution  of  the  Finns 
and  to  let  them  remain  under  their  con- 
stitution, there  soon  began  a  series  of 
reactionary  changes  till  at  last  their  con- 
stitution was  boldly  taken  away,  and 
they  were  reduced  to  a  mere  subject  ter- 
ritory, greatly  to  their  bitter  indignation, 
for  the  Finns  have  long  been  noted  for 
love  of  freedom  and  country. 

Q. — Does   Sweden  not  want  Fin- 
land back? 

A. — Sweden  has  sorely  felt  the  humilia- 
tion of  losing  Finland,  and  the  treatment 
accorded  to  the  Finns  has  not  a  little 
pained  the  Swedish  people,  and  kept 
awake  their  hostility  toward  Russia.  But 
Sweden  always  has  realized  keenly  that 
she  herself  is  quite  powerless  against 
her  big  neighbor,  and  her  governments 
have  tried  zealously  to  keep  the  peace. 

Q. — Did  the  Finns  retain  the  right 
to  suffrage? 

A. — They  got  it  back  during  the  revo- 
lutionary agitation  in  Russia  in  1905. 
There  was  a  sympathetic  upheaval  in 
Finland,  and  some  measure  of  her  old 
rights  was  restored.  In  1906  they  used 
their  new  privileges  to  elect  a  chamber 
of  200  members  to  make  laws  for  them. 
Legislation  providing  for  direct  voting 
and  woman  suffrage  was  obtained.  But 
Russian  governors  did  what  they  could 
to  limit  the  people,  and  friction  with 
Russia  remained  constant. 

Q.— What  is  Helsingfors? 

A. — Helsingfors  is  the  capital  of  Fin- 
land, and  one  of  the  old  towns  of  Eu- 
rope, having  been  founded  by  the  great 
Swedish  King  Gustavus  Vasa.  It  is  a 
fortified  town,  its  water  approach  being 
protected  by  the  Sveaborg  fortress,  which 
is  known  as  the  Gibraltar  of  the  Baltic. 


Q. — What  religion  have  the  Finns  ? 

A. — Originally,  they  were  pagans  of 
Mongolian  affiliations.  The  Swedes 
brought  them  Christianity.  At  the  pres- 
ent time  they  are  mostly  Lutherans. 


Clamoring  Nationalities 


Q. — When    did    Russia    agree    to 
evacuate  Finland? 

A. — On  March  i,  1918,  a  treaty  was 
signed  in  Petrograd.  Russia  agreed  to 
turn  over  to  Finland  all  claims  to  terri- 
tory and  property  "in  the  territory  bor- 
dering on  the  Arctic  Ocean,"  thus  giv- 
ing Finland  all  the  northern  part  of 
Russia  adjoining  Sweden  and  containing 
the  ancient  Lapland. 

Q. — Is  Finland  a  rich  commercial 
territory  ? 

A. — It  may  not  be  unusually  rich,  but 
it  is  very  much  un-exploited,  and  it  con- 
tains most  of  the  resources  that  a  coun- 
try needs  for  income — forest,  agricultural 
lands,  minerals  and  water-powers.  It  is 
about  one-quarter  again  as  big  as  our 
middle  Atlantic  States. 

These  resources  have  not  been  left  un- 
utilized. Finland  has  a  good  system  of 
canals,  a  reasonably  good  but  very  lim- 
ited system  of  railroads,  a  small  but 
profitable  industrial  system,  and  some 
shipping.  Behind  Finland's  life  is  a  tra- 
ditional love  for  schools,  and  there  is  a 
very  sound  educational  system,  which 
would  have  been  still  better  had  the  Finns 
been  permitted  to  manage  their  own  af- 
fairs. 

Finland  now  manufactures  iron-ware, 
textiles,  wooden-ware,  paper,  leather,  and 
some  chemicals. 

Q. — Who  sold  the  most  goods  to 
Finland? 

A. — Germany  did.  She  led  all  competi- 
tors so  far  that  had  it  not  been  for  Rus- 
sian trade  (which  came  next  after  Ger- 
many in  volume),  Germany  would  have 
supplied  nearly  all  of  Finland's  needs, 
leaving  only  a  few  million  dollars  for 
the  rest  of  the  word  to  earn  from  that 
country. 

Q. — How  many  people  are  in  Fin- 
land? 

A. — A  little  more  than  3  million.  The 
Finns  are  about  2j^  million.  There  are 
about  338,000  Swedes,  7,000  Russians,  2,- 
ooo  Germans,  and  less  than  2,000  Lapps. 

Q. — Is  Bessarabia  Arabic? 

A. — No.  It  is  a  purely  Russian  prov- 
ince entirely  within  European  Russia,  in- 
habited by  Slavs,  of  whom  many  are 
Ukrainian.  Bessarabia,  however,  is  not 
actually  a  part  of  what  the  Ukrainians 
have  claimed  historically  as  a  part  of  their 
territory. 


Q. — Where  is  Bessarabia? 

A. — It  is  a  province  of  about  17,000 
square  miles,  with  about  3  million  people, 
that  adjoins  the  Russian  frontier  of 
Roumania,  and  runs  down  to  the  Black 
Sea.  It  has  a  very  important  coast  line 
on  that  sea,  and  Odessa  is  on  its  eastern 
end  where  the  river  Dniester  empties  into 
the  big  sea.  The  fact  that  the  large  river 
runs  through  Bessarabian  territory  makes 
it  commercially  important.  The  city  of 
Kishinev  is  in  it. 

Q. — Why  did  we  hear  so  much  of 
Bessarabia? 

A. — Partly  because  through  it  lay  the 
way  to  Odessa,  and  partly  because  its 
northern  end  wedges  itself  into  a  corner 
formed  by  Roumania  and  Austrian  Buko- 
wina,  and  Galicia.  The  inhabitants  of 
this  debatable  ground  are  so  diverse  in 
their  politics  and  allegiances  that  the  Aus- 
trians  hoped  to  gain  their  support  if  they 
could  break  into  Bessarabia. 

Q. — Is  the  Ukraine  near  Bessa- 
rabia? 

A. — The  western  end  of  the  territory 
claimed  by  the  Ukrainians  adjoins  Bes- 
sarabia. The  Austrian  operations  toward 
Odessa  were  conducted  through  Bessara- 
bia. 

Q. — What  would  be  the  presump- 
tive size  of  an  independent 
Poland? 

A. — Present  Russian  Poland  is  about 
43,000  square  miles  (almost  as  large  as 
Pennsylvania),  and  it  has  12  million  popu- 
lation, which  is  4  million  more  than 
Pennsylvania  has,  despite  its  big  and 
crowded  manufacturing  cities. 

Q. — Can  you  state  the  first  Ger- 
man terms  at  Brest-Litovsk? 

A.; — The  Germans  agreed  to  withdraw 
their  troops  from  all  occupied  Russian 
territory,  except  "portions  of  Lithuania, 
Cpurland,  and  portions  of  Esthonia  and 
Livonia."  For  these  territories  it  was 
proposed  that  a  special  commission  should 
fix  the  details  of  evacuation  "in  con- 
formity with  the  Russian  idea  of  the 
necessary  ratification  by  a  plebiscite  on 
broad  lines  and  without  any  military  pres- 
sure whatever." 

The  reason  given  by  the  Germans  for 
making  special  conditions  regarding  these 
territories,  was  that  the  population  had 
already,  through  representative  bodies, 
proclaimed  separation  from  Russia. 


i68 


Questions  and  Ansivcrs 


The  other  terms  were  almost  all  merely 
such  military  and  political  details  as  arc 
common  to  all  peace  treaties,  to  restore 
relations  to  the  pre-war  status.  Indem- 
nities of  any  kind  were  distinctly  waived. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  announce- 
ment of  German  intentions  at 
Brest-Litovsk? 

A. — It  was  the  announcement  made 
January  23,  1918,  that  the  future  frontier 
of  Russia  should  be  a  line  east  of  the 
Moon  Islands  to  Brest-Litovsk.  This 
meant  a  complete  elimination  of  Cour- 
land  and  the  Baltic  provinces  from  Rus- 
sia. 

Q. — Did  the  German  demand 
mean  annexation? 

A. — It  was  so  construed,  and  with  a 
great  deal  of  reason ;  but  it  did  not  ac- 
tually and  specifically  declare  annexation 
to  be  an  aim  of  the  Germans.  There 
still  remained  the  more  or  less  indefinite 
program  of  self-determination,  but  this 
again  was  complicated  and  obscured  by 
the  German  refusal  to  evacuate  those 
provinces  before  the  process  of  such  self- 
determination  should  begin. 

Q. — Will  the  Jewish  question  be 
dealt  with  in  the  Peace  Con- 
ference? 

A. — A  principle  announced  early  in  the 
war  was  "to  assert  and  to  enforce  the  in- 
dependence of  free  States,  relatively  small 
and  weak,  against  the  encroachments  and 
the  violence  of  the  strong,"  and,  as  the 
struggle  proceeded,  this  has  been  assumed 
to  include  the  liberation  of  subject  peo- 
ples. The  Jews,  however,  are  in  different 
case  from  other  races.  The  Czechs,  the 
Poles,  the  Serbs,  the  Ruthcnians,  the  Rou- 
manians, live  in  more  or  less  definite 
areas,  so  that  their  creation  into  self- 
governing  communities  may  be  possible. 
The  Jews,  though,  are  scattered  over  the 
face  of  the  earth ;  they  do  not  anywhere 
inhabit  territory  where  they  outnumber 
the  peoples  of  other  races  in  any  extended 
area.  They  dwell  among  other  peoples, 
but  yet  are  not  of  them.  There  may  be, 
however,  a  real  effort  to  procure  just 
treatment  for  Jews  everywhere,  by  laying 
down  principles  of  just  government  for 
minorities  everywhere. 

Q. — Are  there  many  Jews  in  Pales- 
tine? 

A. — Apparently  there  are  not  very  many 
left  there  now,  but  before  the  war  there 
were  some  80,000.  Of  these,  only  5,000 


settled  in  the  country  as  a  result  of  the 
Zionist  movement.  They  were  supported 
by  contributions  from  abroad,  chiefly 
from  Russia.  As  funds  were  cut  off  as 
soon  as  the  war  broke  out  their  condition 
was  soon  deplorable,  and  many  escaped 
to  Egypt. 

Q. — How  many  Jews  are  there  in 
the  world? 

A. — That  is  difficult  to  estimate,  as  not 
every  country  makes  a  religious  census. 
There  are  probably  about  13,000,000. 
More  than  6,000,000  live  in  Russia,  more 
than  2,000,000  in  Austria-Hungary,  and 
a  few  less  in  the  United  States.  In  Aus- 
tralasia there  are  19,500;  in  Canada,  60,- 
ooo;  in  South  Africa,  40,000;  250,006  in 
the  British  Isles.  In  Germany  there  are 
nearly  700,000;  in  Turkey,  outside  Pales- 
tine, 380,000;  in  Roumania,  250,000;  in 
Holland,  110,000;  and  in  Morocco  about 
the  same.  France  has  100,000,  and  Bel- 
gium 12,000.  In  Italy  there  are  55,000, 
and  in  Argentina  more  than  30,000. 

Q. — Who  is  spiritual  head  of  the 
Armenian  Church? 

A. — In  the  early  days  the  headship  was 
hereditary,  and  occasionally  the  "Cathol- 
icus" and  the  King  were  one  and  the  same. 
Now,  however,  the  Chief  Catholicus  is 
chosen  by  the  Synod  of  bishops  and 
monks,  though,  nominally,  the  choice  is 
made  by  the  Armenian  people  themselves. 
The  seat  of  the  Catholicus  is  at  Echmiad- 
zin, the  convent  of  Valarshapat,  a  town 
in  Russian  Armenia.  There  is  a  rival 
Catholicus,  who  has  his  see  at  Sic. 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  between 
the  Syrian  and  Armenian 
churches? 

A. — In  earlier  centuries  both  churches 
were  alike,  but  long  ago  the  Syrian 
Christians  became  members  of  the  Greek 
•  Orthodox  Church. 

Q. — What  faith  do  the  Armenians 
profess? 

A. — They  are  Christians.  The  Ar- 
menian Church  is  the  oldest  of  all  na- 
tional churches.  Tradition  credits  the 
evangelization  of  Armenia  to  St.  Bar- 
tholomew and  St.  Thaddeus.  This  leg- 
end probably  was  borrowed  from  Syria, 
for  it  is  known  that  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury parts  of  the  liturgy  were  read  in 
Syriac  throughout  Armenia.  During  the 
early  days  of  the  Armenian  Church  it 
appears  that  many  customs  of  the  pre- 


Clamoring  Nationalities 


169 


Christian  priesthood  were  maintained, 
such  as  the  sacrifice  of  animals  under  the 
rites  of  the  old  Levitical  Law. 

Q. — Does  the  Armenian  Church 
more  nearly  resemble  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  or  the  Greek 
Catholic? 

A. — It  is  quite  independent,  but  always 
has  been  more  widely  divided  from  the 
Greek  than  from  the  Roman.  One  of 
the  sects  is,  indeed,  practically  ^  Roman 
Catholic.  Dominican  missions  visited  Ar- 
menia in  the  fourteenth  century  and  a 
regular  order,  the  United  Brethren,  was 
formed.  This  order  is  known  to-day  as 
the  Uniats.  They  have  convents  in  Ven- 
ice and  Vienna,  a  college  in  Rome,  and  a 
large  following  in  Turkey.  They  retain 
Armenian  rites  and  liturgy,  modified  to 
meet  Vatican  standards  of  orthodoxy. 

Village  priests  in  the  Armenian  Church 
are  allowed  to  marry,  but  since  the  twelfth 
century  the  higher  clergy  have  been  tak- 
ing the  monkish  vow  and  wearing  the 
cowl.  The  paschal  lamb  is  still  eaten*. 
In  baptism  they  dip  three  times,  not  as 
symbol  of  the  triune  name  of  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Ghost,  but  in  symbol  of  the 
three  days'  entombment  of  Christ. 

Until  the  twelfth  century,  and  perhaps 
later,  they  maintained  that  Christ,  until 
his  thirtieth  birthday,  was  a  man  mortal 
as  other  men.  Then,  because  He  was 
righteous  beyond  all  others,  He  became 
divine  when  baptized  in  the  Jordan ;  but 
He  did  not  become  the  equal  of  God  the 
Father.  Holding  this  belief,  they  attach 
immense  importance  to  baptism,  and  cele- 
brate January  7,  not  December  25,  as 
Christmas,  holding  that  Christ  was  born 
by  way  of  baptism.  Belief  in  purgatory 
does  not  appear  to  be  very  general  in  the 
Armenian  Church. 

Q. — How  many  men  did  Serbia 
send  to  the  front  during  the 
first  three  months? 

A. — Serbia  sent  to  the  front  during  the 
first  three  months  of  the  war  about  a 
quarter  of  a  million  men. 

Q. — Which  is  the  correct  spelling 
— Servia  or  Serbia? 

A. — Formerly  it  was  spelled  Servia,  but 
now  it  is  officially  spelled  Serbia.  The 
Slavs  spell  it  with  a  "b,"  but  as  their  "b" 
is  pronounced  "v,"  the  correct  pronuncia- 
tion would  appear  to  be  Servia.  The 
Russians,  for  instance,  write  Sebastopol, 


and,  in  consequence,  we  pronounce  it  as 
we  spell  it — Sebastopol.  They,  however, 
pronounce  it  Sevastopol. 

Q. — What  is  the  Sinn  Fein? 

A. — It  is  an  Irish  political  group  orig- 
inating in  1903.  The  name  means  "For 
Ourselves,"  or  "For  Ourselves  Alone,"  in 
Gaelic,  and  the  movement  was  originally 
a  group  of  poets,  philosophers  and  work- 
ers enthusiastic  for  the  revival  of  the 
Gaelic  language  and  literature,  and  Irish 
industries  in  Ireland.  Later  they  became 
more  revolutionary,  advocating  an  Irish 
national  bank,  an  Irish  merchant  marine, 
and  Irish  consular  service — Irish  auton- 
omy, in  fact — and  opposing  Irish  taxation 
by  England,  emigration,  and  recruiting 
for  the  British  Army.  This  Sinn  Fein 
party  joined  with  Sir  Roger  Casement  in 
the  Irish  Rebellion  of  1916,  and  a  Sinn 
Feiner  poet,  Padraic  Pearce,  was  named 
as  first  president  of  the  short-lived  Irish 
Republic.  Pearce,  Thomas  MacDonagh, 
Joseph  Plunkett  and  other  Sinn  Fein  lead- 
ers were  executed  as  traitors  in  the  Lon- 
don Tower  in  May,  1916,  as  was  also  Sir 
Roger  Casement. 

Q. — How  is  the  word  pronounced? 

A. — It  is  pronounced  "shin  fane." 

Q. — What  is  the  Home  Rule  ques- 
tion? 

A. — It  is  a  demand  by  Ireland  for  its 
own  separate  political  government,  with 
its  own  Parliament  sitting  in  Ireland. 
The  government  of  Ireland  has  never 
satisfied  the  Irish.  In  protest  against  it, 
as  well  as  against  the  conditions  of  life 
from  which  the  Irish  have  suffered,  there 
have  been  repeated  political,  educational, 
and  revolutionary  movements.  The  mod- 
ern history  of  the  problem  began  about 
1880,  with  Charles  Stewart  Parnell  as 
spokesman  for  the  Irish,  demanding  re- 
form of  land  tenure  and  home  rule. 

William  E.  Gladstone  was  the  first  great 
British  statesman  to  accept  the  idea  of 
home  rule,  but  no  measure  to  accomplish 
it  was  passed  until  1914,  and  this  law 
was  at  once  suspended  for  the  duration 
of  the  war.  A  fundamental  difficulty  in 
adjusting  a  basis  for  home  rule  is  the 
existence  of  two  groups  in  Ireland,  which 
have  been  mutually  distrustful:  (i)  The 
Irish,  who  are  mostly  Catholic,  and  gen- 
erally live  in  the  country;  and  (2)  the 
Protestant  Ulstermen,  who  are  mostly  of 
British  blood,  live  in  northern  Ireland, 
own  property,  and  direct  the  city  life  and 
manufactures. 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  parties  lead  in  Ireland? 

A. — (i)  The  Ulster  Unionists  in  north- 
ern Ireland,  who  demand  close  connec- 
tions with  England,  and  fear  the  control 
of  Ireland  by  the  Catholic  Irish ;  (2)  the 
Irish  Nationalists,  who  comprise  the  bulk 
of  the  population,  and  have  long  main- 
tained a  compact  group  of  representa- 
tives in  Parliament,  desiring  home  rule, 
but  more  or  less  supporting  the  present 
war  under  the  leadership  of  John  Red- 
mond till  his  death  in  1918;  (3)  a  mid- 
dle group,  drawing  away  from  both  of 
these,  and  desiring  a  friendly  accommo- 
dation of  differences ;  (4)  the  Sinn  Fein, 
extreme  nationalists,  demanding  imme- 
diate and  genuine  independence. 

Q. — Did  the  Austrians  make  peace 
with  Montenegro  or  not? 

A. — They  made  a  sort  of  arrangement, 
not  with  the  king,  but  with  two  members 
of  the  Montenegrin  Cabinet  they  found 
in  Cettinje,  General  Becer  and  Major 
Lampar.  By  that  time,  however,  many 
Montenegrins  had  fled  into  Albania,  and 
those  remaining  were  presumably  not 
very  hostile  to  the  Austrians.  The  con- 
ditions imposed  were  that  all  arms  had 
to  be  given  up  except  those  of  the  Mon- 
tenegrins who  were  to  assist  in  the  polic- 
ing of  the  country.  The  people  were  to 
lend  all  possible  assistance  to  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  forces  by  furnishing  them  with 
food  and  water,  means  of  transporta- 
tion and  housing,  but  they  were  not  to  be 
required  to  enter  the  territory  of  their 
conquerors.  The  3,000  Austrian  soldiers 
who  had  been  captured  by  the  Montene- 
grins were  released. 

Q. — Did  America  protest  against 
violation  of  Grecian  territory 
by  the  Allies? 

A. — No.  True  to  her  settled  policy 
when  neutral  not  to  interfere  in  Euro- 
pean matters,  she  refrained  from  protest 
on  this  occasion,  as  when  the  Germans 
violated  Luxembourg  and  Belgium. 

Q. — Did  Greece  nearly  take  the 
Turkish  side  in  the  first  Bal- 
kan war  in  1912? 

A. — A  few  days  after  the  Balkan  Allies 
had  begun  fighting  among  themselves, 
Prime  Minister  Venizelos  was  assailed 
savagely  for  having  allied  Greece  with 
greedy  Bulgaria.  He  defended  himself 
in  a  speech  which  made  clear  that  his 
preliminary  diplomacy  had  been  aimed  at 


getting  from  Turkey  a  satisfactory  con- 
cession, particularly  on  the  Cretan  qnes- 
tion ;  and  his  speech  indicated  that  if 
such  a  settlement  could  have  been  reached 
with  Constantinople,  Greece  would  have 
been  kept  by  him  out  of  the  war,  or  might 
possibly  even  have  opposed  the  other  Bal- 
kan States. 

Q.— Why    did    the    Balkan    Allies 
fight  among  themselves? 

A. — The  League  of  Balkan  States  had 
been  inspired  only  by  one  common  pur- 
pose— that  of  driving  Turkey  out  of  the 
Balkans.  In  everything  else  they  were 
hostile.  Serb  hated  Bulgar,  and  Bulgar 
hated  Greek,  and  Greek  did  not  much  love 
either.  When  the  extraordinary  victory 
had  come,  and  Turkey's  whole  Balkan 
possessions  (especially  Macedonia)  lay  in 
their  hands,  they  immediately  became  fu- 
riously jealous  of  each  other.  Serbia  re- 
iused  to  withdraw  her  troops  from  Cen- 
tral Macedonia,  which  the  Serb-Bulgar 
pre-war  treaty  had  marked  out  for  Bul- 
garia. Bulgarians  and  Greeks  raced  head- 
long to  seize  desired  portions  of  eastern 
Macedonia.  The  Greeks  had  already 
snatched  Saloniki,  and,  while  Bulgaria 
still  was  fighting  the  main  Turkish  Army 
at  Adrianople,  they  took  more  cities  and 
territory  on  the  sea-coast  of  Macedonia 
near  Saloniki. 

Q. — Who  began  the  second  Balkan 
War? 

A. — Bulgaria  did.  She  began  it,  in- 
deed, without  a  formal  declaration,  and 
struck  suddenly,  according  to  the  charges 
made  against  her  by  Greece  and  Serbia. 
But  there  had  been  sporadic  fighting  be- 
tween the  various  troops  occupying  con- 
tested points  for  some  months.  Bul- 
garia had,  without  doubt,  done  the  big 
part  of  the  fighting  against  Turkey. 
While  Greece,  Serbia  and  Montenegro 
had  been  defeating  Turkish  troops  within 
the  Balkans,  and  particularly  within 
Macedonia,  Bulgaria  had  held  off  the  real 
Turkish  Army,  and  had  almost  succeeded 
in  striking  at  Constantinople.  Flushed 
•with  her  triumphs,  and  furious  at  the 
seizure  of  Macedonian  territory,  which  it 
had  been  positively  agreed  should  be 
hers.  Bulgaria  insisted  on  the  pre-war 
pledges  being  made  good  instantly,  and 
declared  war  as  the  alternative.  To  sum 
•up :  Greece  and  Serbia  had  treated  Bul- 
garia very  badly.  Bulgaria  was  as  greedy 
as  they,  however,  and  was  so  "cocky" 
over  her  great  prowess  in  war  that  she 
acted  with  insufferable  arrogance  toward 
her  former  Allies. 


Clamoring  Nationalities   - 


171 


Q. — Who  has  the  best  claims  to 
Macedonia? 

A. — The  secret  treaty  between  Serbia 
and  Bulgaria  ^certainly  guaranteed  Bul- 
garian possession  of  Central  Macedonia. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  that.  It  has 
never  been  denied.  That  Central  Mace- 
donia is  inhabited  largely  by  Bulgarian 
peoples  also  is  too  well  known  historically 
to  be  seriously  questioned.  The  whole 
history  of  revolts  against  Turkey  through 
centuries  has  had,  as  one  of  its  chief 
springs  of  action,  the  burning  passion  of 
the  Bulgars  to  liberate  brother  Bui- 
gars  in  Macedonia  from  Turkish 
rule.  But  no  human  being,  however 
gifted,  can  draw  lines  on  the  Balkan  map 
and  say,  "here  and  here  dwell  such  and 
such  nationalities."  The  races  are  too 
intricately  mixed — and  they  are  not 
friends. 

Q. — Would  a  just  settlement  divide 
the  Balkans  over  again? 

A. — If  an  international  congress  were 
to  meet  with  the  purest  will  to  effect  a 
"just  settlement,"  and  if  it  were  to  call 
in  all  the  ethnological  and  other  experts 
in  the  world,  it  would  probably  find  it 
impossible  to  make  a  "just  settlement" 
on  the  basis  of  dividing  the  contested  Bal- 
kan territories  among  Greece,  Serbia,  and 
Bulgaria.  Those  three  States  might,  con- 
ceivably, be  satisfied ;  but,  in  the  divided 
territories,  there  would  remain  villages 
and  districts  wholly,  bitterly  unrecon- 
ciled. It  might  be  possible  (though  ex- 
cessively difficult)  to  so  arrange  it  that 
the  unreconciled  people  would  be  only 
minorities — but  it  is  the  oppressed  mi- 
norities that  are  making  a  good  part  of 
the  big  trouble  just  now  over  the  ques- 
tion of  "small  nationalities." 

Q. — Was    there    an    uprising    in 
Greece  against  the  Allies? 

A. — There  was  an  attack  by  Greek 
troops  on  Allied  troops  near  Athens 
shortly  before  the  Allies  forced  Constan- 
tine  to  abdicate.  In  January  or  early 
February,  1918,  after  Constantine's  abdi- 
cation, there  was  another  military  upris- 
ing at  Lamia,  of  which  little  news  was 
given  to  the  world  beyond  the  announce- 
ment by  Prime  Minister  Venizelos  that: 

"The  Government,  believing  that  it  must 
act  without  delay,  has  closed  the  session 
of  the  Parliament,  so  as  to  arrest,  if 
necessary,  those  members  of  Parliament 
who  would  be  immune  on  account  of 
their  membership  were  it  in  session.  .  .  . 
Every  one  must  understand  that  the  events 


of  Lamia  have  convinced  the  Government 
that  it  must  take  an  entirely  different  and 
firmer  attitude  toward  its  adversaries." 

Q. — Was  there  a  South  African  re- 
volt against  England  early  in 
the  war? 

A. — Yes.  De  Wet,  the  famous  Boer 
leader,  in  October,  1914,  raised  the  stand- 
ard of  revolt  with  some  five  or  six  thou- 
sand Boers.  By  December  i,  De  Wet 
was  a  prisoner,  and  his  army  dispersed 
and  captured  by  Boer  forces,  led  by  De 
Smuts.  Louis  Botha,  a  Boer  leader,  was 
Prime  Minister  at  the  time,  and  main- 
tained the  adherence  of  the  Colony  to 
the  British  Empire. 

Q. — How  has  Great  Britain  treated 
annexed  nationalities? 

A. — In  October,  1914,  Field  Marshal 
Earl  Roberts  made  the  following  state- 
ment: 

"In  India,  which  is,  to  some  extent, 
under  the  control  of  the  British  Parlia- 
ment, such  good  work  has  been  done  for 
the  development  of  the  country,  there  is 
such  security  for  life  and  property,  such 
respect  and  toleration  for  the  religious 
and  social  customs  of  the  people,  that 
impartial  observers  of  all  nations  have 
united  in  a  chorus  of  unstinted  praise  of 
British  rule  in  India.  Russian,  French, 
and  German  writers  who  have  been  in 
India  have,  in  turn,  paid  tribute  to  the 
sympathy,  tolerance,  prudence,  and  benev- 
olence of  our  rule. 

"Nor  is  there  any  sign  that  British  ad- 
ministrators are  tiring  of  their  task,  or 
likely  to  fail  in  bearing  'the  white  man's 
burden.'  In  each  new  dependency  which 
comes  under  our  care,  young  men,  fresh 
from  the  public  schools  of  Britain,  come 
eagerly  forward  to  carry  on  the  high  tra- 
ditions of  Imperial  Britain.  We  have 
only  to  look  at  the  work  done  recently  in 
Nigeria,  in  the  Sudan,  in  Rhodesia,  and 
in  British  East  Africa,  to  see  that  as  a 
race  the  British  are,  if  anything,  more 
capable  than  ever  of  carrying  on  the  work 
of  Empire." 

This  may  be  said  to  represent  the  gen- 
eral English  view. 

Q. — What  is  the  cause  for  revolu- 
tionary unrest  in  India? 

A. — The  native  opponents  of  British 
rule  are  actuated  by  two  leading  motives. 
One  is  simply  the  common  desire  of  na- 
tionalities and  races  in  this  era  for  their 
independence.  The  other  is  economic. 
They  claim  that  the  mass  of  the  popula- 


172 


Questions  and  Answers 


tion  is  kept  poor  to  produce  revenues  for 
England,  and  for  the  English  office-hold- 
ers and  residents  in  India. 

Q. — What  charges  do  the  Indian 
revolutionaries  make? 

A. — They  claim  that  the  taxes  on  the 
poor  natives,  though  the  sums  seem  truly 
petty  to  the  western  mind,  are  excessive, 
considering  the  tiny  native  incomes. 
Manohar  Lai,  ex-Professor  of  Econom- 
ics in  the  University  of  Calcutta,  said,  in 
1916,  that  the  average  annual  income  per 
head  of  population  in  India  had  been  $10 
during  the  past  thirty  years. 

Q. — Do  British  Indian  officials  get 
high  salaries? 

A.— The  Viceroy  of  India  (full  title 
Viceroy  and  Governor-General)  gets  $83,- 
ooo  a  year.  There  also  is  a  list  of  large 
allowances  for  various  purposes.  The 
members  of  the  Viceroy's  Council  get 
$16,000  each.  The  Governors  of  the 
Provinces  get  the  following  salaries : 
Madras,  $39,000;  Bengal,  $39,000;  Agra 
and  Oudh,  $33,opo;  Punjab,  $33,000;  Bur- 
ma, $33,000;  Bihar  and  Orissa,  $33,ooo; 
Central  Provinces  and  Berar,  $20,000 ;  As- 
sam, $19,800;  Northwest  Frontier,  $16,- 
ooo;  Ajmer-Merwara,  $16,000;  Coorg, 
$16,000;  Beluchistan,  $16,000;  Delhi,  $12,- 
ooo;  Andaman  and  Nicobar  Islands,  $12,- 
ooo.  Total  for  heads  of  government  (ex- 
clusive of  Council  members,  of  whom 
there  are  some  14),  $420,800,  for  the  heads 
of  government  alone. 

Q. — Are  the  natives  very  poor? 

A. — The  Indian  Government  statistics 
show  that  weekly  wages  of  agricultural 
laborers  in  Bengal  are  from  $i  to  as  low 
as  50  cents  a  week.  In  the  Punjab,  ac- 
cording to  native  Indian  writers,  they 
range  from  33  cents  to  35  cents  a  week. 

Q. — Do  all  the  native  opponents  of 
British  rule  want  independ- 
ence? 

A. — No.  Their  desires  are  wonderfully 
various.  Some  would  be  content  with  a 
reasonable  apportionment  of  the  better 
paid  public  offices  among  the  natives,  oth- 
ers want  simply  social  equality,  and  still 
others  would  perhaps  be  content  with  such 
reforms  as  a  purely  Indian  fiscal  system, 
etc.  The  majority  probably  would  be  sat- 
isfied with  nothing  short  of  a  very  large 
measure  of  genuine  autonomy.  The  very 
patriotic  and  ardent  ones  demand  com- 
plete independence,  and  are  willing  to  re- 
sort to  arms. 


Q. — Why   has    Mrs.    Besant   been 
interned? 

A. — She  was  interned  in  June,  1917,  for 
agitating  in  favor  of  Home  Rule  for 
India.  Before  she  was  imprisoned,  she 
sold  her  newspaper,  New  India,  to  a  Mr. 
Telang  of  Bombay. 

Q. — Who  represented  India  at  the 
Indian  conference? 

A. — Austen  Chamberlain,  then  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  India;  Sir  James 
Meeston,  Lieutenant-Governor  of  the 
United  Provinces  of  Agra  and  Oudh ; 
His  Highness  the  Maharajah  of  Bi- 
kaner,  and  Sir  Satyendra  Prasanna 
Sinha. 

Q. — What  are  the  causes  of  Indian 
famines  ? 

A. — They  are  given  as  shortage  of  rain- 
fall, with  resulting  droughts  due  to  the 
lack  of  sufficiently  extensive  water-stor- 
age systems.  This  seems  to  be  one  of  the 
very  big  reasons  for  periodical  famines. 
Students  and  experts  have  often  stated 
that  in  many  famine  years  there  had  been 
a  heavy  rainfall,  but  it  had  occurred  at 
the  wrong  time,  and  the  water,  of  course, 
had  gone  to  waste. 

Over-population  is  given  as  another 
reason.  The  critics  of  the  government, 
however,  point  to  the  fact  that  popula- 
tion statistics,  figured  to  the  square  mile 
of  national  areas,  show  that  European 
countries  have  a  denser  population  than 
India.  The  revolutionaries  say  that  the 
true  cause  is  the  poverty  of  the  people, 
which  prevents  them  from  having  any  re- 
serve for  time  of  need. 

Q. — Do    famines    in    India    occur 
often? 

A. — William  Digby,  in  "Prosperous 
British  India,"  gives  the  following  table, 
showing  famines  to  1900: 

Eleventh  century,  two  famines,  both 
local ;  thirteenth  century,  one  famine 
around  Delhi,  local ;  fourteenth  century, 
three  famines,  all  local ;  fifteenth  century, 
two  famines,  both  local ;  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, three  famines,  all  local ;  seventeenth 
century,  three  famines,  area  not  defined; 
the  eighteenth  century  (1769-1800),  four 
famines,  Bengal,  Madras,  Bombay  and 
southern  India. 

Famines  of  the  nineteenth  century  and 
loss  of  life  thereby,  divided  into  four  pe- 
riods of  25  years : 

1800-1825,  five  famines,  approximately 
1,000,000  deaths;  1826-1850,  two  famines, 


Clatnoring  Nationalities 


173 


approximately  500,000  deaths;  1851-1875, 
six  famines,  recorded  5,000,000  deaths ; 
1876-1900,  eighteen  famines,  estimated  26,- 
000,000  deaths. 

Q. — Are  the  famines  due  to  actual 
lack  of  food  in  the  country? 

A. — J.  Ramsay  MacDonald  says,  in  his 
"The  Awakening  of  India" : 

"In  studying  famines,  one  must  begin 
by  grasping  what  it  is  and  how  it  pre- 
sents itself.  Even  in  the  worst  times 
there  is  no  scarcity  of  grain  in  the  fam- 
ine-stricken districts.  At  the  very  worst 
time  in  the  Gujerat  famine  of  1900,  it  was 
shown  by  the  official  returns  that  there 
was  'sufficient  grain  to  last  for  a  couple 
of  years  in  the  hands  of  the  grain  dealers 
of  the  district.  It  is,  therefore,  not  a 
scarcity  of  grain  that  causes  famines.'  In 
recent  times,  famine  has  been  caused  by  a 
destruction  of  capital  and  the  consequent 
cessation  of  the  demand  for  labor.  High 
prices  coincide  with  low  wages  and  un- 
employment, and  the  people  starve  in  the 
midst  of  plenty." 

Q. — Does  the  government  not  re- 
lieve famine? 

A. — The  work  of  the  British  in  famine 
relief  has  been  praised  by  practically 
every  observer,  even  by  zealous  critics  of. 
the  British  in  other  respects.  Lajpat  Rai, 
one  of  the  most  pronounced  opponents  of 
English  rule  in  India,  who  has  been  exiled 
because  of  his  agitations,  says  that  this 
work  of  the  English  deserves  ungrudging 
praise.  They  have  reduced  it  to  a  science 
and  a  small  army  of  splendid  men  give  up 
their  lives  to  it,  and  very  often  cut  short 
their  lives  by  their  zealous  labors. 

Q. — What  is  the  relief  work? 

A. — Building  of  railroads,  building  of 
dams  and  bridges,  construction  of  canals 
and  irrigation  works,  opening  of  agricul- 
tural banks,  etc.  Relief  camps  are  opened 
under  alert  officials  and  everything  pos- 
sible is  done  to  bring  food  and  means  of 
earning  it  to  the  afflicted  districts. 

Q. — Did  the  British  get  India  by 
conquest? 

A. — Only  in  part,  by  sporadic,  though 
pretty  continual,  military  campaigns  here 
and  there.  The  real  conquerors  were  the 
officials  and  forces  of  the  British  East 
India  Company,  one  of  the  most  extraor- 
dinary commercial  associations  that  ever 
existed.  It  was  technically  a  private  stock 
company  of  merchants,  yet  it  wielded  all 


the  powers  of  a  strong  national  govern- 
ment, even  to  the  extent  of  maintaining 
an  enlisted  army  and  making  war. 

Q. — What  is  the  British  East  In- 
dia Company? 

A. — It  is  the  offspring  of  the  "Governor 
and  Company  of  Merchants  of  London 
Trading  into  the  East  Indies,"  which  was 
founded  by  Queen  Elizabeth  in  1600,  and 
made  the  first  commercial  settlement  in 
India  in  1621,  after  having  about  10  years 
before  defeated  the  Portuguese  settlers 
who  were  there  before  them. 

Q. — What  was  India  when  the 
British  came  in? 

A. — It  was  a  country  divided  into  in- 
numerable governments,  whose  rulers 
were  practically  independent  masters, 
though  some  acknowledged  the  suzerainty 
of  a  central  ruler,  the  Grand  Mogul  in 
Delhi.  Some  of  the  rulers  were  Hindu, 
some  were  Moslem,  other  governments 
were  mixed. 

Q. — Why  did  other  European  na- 
tions not  get  foothold  in  In- 
dia? 

A. — The  Portuguese  and  French  were 
there  before  the  British.  The  Portuguese 
lost  their  hold  before  1700.  The  French 
fought  the  English  from  about  1700  to 
1761,  when  the  English  won  a  great  final 
victory  (the  famous  victory  of  Pondi- 
cherry)._  That  was  practically  the  end  of 
France  in  India. 

Q. — How  did  England  acquire  In- 
dia after  ousting  the  French? 

A. — Slowly,  steadily,  ^by  a  wonderfully 
intricate  process  of  native  alliances,  wars 
with  native  Princes,  concessions,  con- 
quests, protectorates,  and  financial  ar- 
rangements, whose  complete  history  fills 
hundreds  of  volumes,  and  still  has  not 
been  told  in  all  its  complex  details. 

Q. — Who  was  Lord  Clive? 

A. — He  was  a  famous  ruler  of  the 
conquered  Bengal  provinces  under  the 
British  East  India  Company,  and  he  ruled 
till  1769. 

He  was  a  very  great  man,  and  one  of 
unusual  talents  and  gifts ;  but  the  power 
which  he  had,  and  the  insistent  demands 
of  the  great  company,  caused  conditions 
of  which  Macaulay  says :  "There  was  no 
limit  to  his  acquisition  but  his  own  mod- 
eration. The  treasure  of  Bengal  was 


174 


Questions  and  Answers 


thrown  open  to  him.  Clive  walked  be- 
tween heaps  of  gold  and  silver,  crowned 
with  rubies  and  diamonds,  and  was  at  lib- 
erty to  help  himself.  Enormous  for- 
tunes were  thus  rapidly  accumulated  at 
Calcutta,  while  thirty  millions  of  human 
beings  were  reduced  to  the  extremity  of 
wretchedness." 

Clive  was  bitterly  assailed  in  the  British 
Parliament  when  he  returned,  but  he  de- 
fended himself  well,  and  while  Parliament 
criticized  certain  financial  transactions,  it 
also  declared  that  he  had  rendered  meri- 
torious service. 

Q. — Was  Clive  impeached  in  Eng- 
land? 

A. — No.  The  man  who  was  impeached 
was  Warren  Hastings,  appointed  gover- 
nor-general of  India  in  1774.  He  returned 
from  India  with  vast  wealth,  and  his  im- 
peachment trial  before  the  House  of 
Lords  lasted  for  seven  years  (1788-1795), 
and  has  remained  one  of  the  most  famous 
proceedings  in  the  world.  During  that 
time  England's  greatest  orators  and  states- 
men made  addresses  that  remain  as  the 
masterpieces  of  eloquence.  All  England 
was  stirred  by  the  tale  of  exploitation  and 
intrigue  that  was  laid  bare.  The  leader 
in  the  indictments  against  Warren  Hast- 
ings was  Edmund  Burke.  Hastings  was 
finally  acquitted,  but  all  his  wealth  had 
gone  in  the  struggle,  and  he  lived  the  rest 
of  his  life  on  an  annuity  of  $20.000  a  year 
granted  him  by  the  British  East  India 
Company. 

Q. — Does  the   British  East  India 
Company  still  rule  India? 

A. — No.  In  1784  Parliament  passed 
the  first  of  many  laws  that  gradually 
curbed  and  minimized  its  powers.  After 
the  great  Indian  Mutiny  the  entire  ad- 
ministration of  India  passed  to  the  Brit- 
ish crown  (in  1858). 

Q. — How  is  India  ruled  now? 

A. — By  a  "Governor-General  and  Vice- 
roy," appointed  by  the  English  King. 
He  holds  office  for  5  years,  and  has  su- 
preme civil  and  military  control  with  an 
executive  council  of  a  somewhat  indeter- 
minate number  of  members,  some  elected 


by  a  very  exclusive  suffrage,  but  most 
appointed  by  the  Crown  and  always  in 
such  a  way  that  the  government  shall 
have  a  majority  of  at  least  three. 

Under  this  central  government  are  the 
central  departments ;  and  besides  this 
great,  widespread  central  administration 
are  the  very  large  and  elaborate  govern- 
ments of  the  15  provinces,  each  with  a 
Governor  and  a  Council  or  a  "Resident." 
Under  these  again  is  the  immense  local 
machinery  of  government — the  districts 
within  the  provinces.  There  are  more 
than  250  of  these  district  governments. 
The  districts  again  are  parcelled  out  into 
lesser  units,  under  British  officials,  magis- 
trates, or  deputy  collectors. 

Q. — Are  many  natives  in  the  gov- 
ernment? 

A. — Practically  all  the  high  offices  are 
held  by  Englishmen.  Of  the  offices  that 
have  salaries  down  to  $300  a  year,  most 
are  held  by  natives.  About  6,500  English- 
men thus  manage,  by  a  complex  machin- 
ery, to  rule  the  300  millions  of  Indian 
people. 

Q. — What   were   the   India   revolt 
plots? 

A. — Almost  as  soon  as  the  great  war 
began,  natives  of  India  in  this  country, 
who  long  had  been  protesting  against 
British  rule  in  India,  began  propaganda 
and  engaged  in  activities  which  the  great 
British  secret  service  system  in  this  coun- 
try fought  hard  to  prevent.  Many  of 
these  Indians  were  arrested,  and  finally 
the  government  indicted  about  thirty  men, 
mostly  East  Indians,  for  "fomenting  a 
revolution  against  a  friendly  power." 
They  were  put  on  trial  in  San  Francisco, 
and  in  the  last  days  of  the  case  there 
were  put  in  evidence  papers  that,  in  one 
way  or  another,  brought  in  such  names 
as  Sir  Rabindranath  Tagore,  winner  of 
the  Nobel  prize  for  poetry;  Counts  Oku- 
ma  and  Terauchi,  former  Premiers  of 
Japan,  Wu  Ting  Fang,  once  Chinese 
Ambassador  to  the  United  States. 

A  great  deal  of  money  was  spent  in  the 
agitation,  and  it  had  ramifications  in 
China,  South  America,  the  West  Indies, 
Central  America,  and  throughout  Asia, 


RESTLESS  RUSSIA 


Q. — What  was  the  Russian  peace 
treaty  ? 

A. — It  was  signed  at  Brest-Litovsk  in 
the  first  few  days  of  March,  1918.  A  cer- 
tain territory  "lying  west  of  the  line 
agreed  on"^  was  declared  as  no  longer 
under  Russian  sovereignty.  The  line  was 
not  described  in  the  treaty,  but  was  under- 
stood to  be  the  demarcation  for  new 
Poland,  Lithuania,  and  the  Ukraine. 

The  boundaries  of  the  States  of  Es- 
thonia  and  Livonia  were  specifically  ar- 
ranged. Russia  undertook  to  make  peace 
with  the  Ukraine  People's  Republic,  and 
to  recognize  the  peace  treaty  between  the 
Ukraine  and  the  Central  Powers.  Finland 
and  the  Aland  Islands  were  to  be  evacu- 
ated by  Russia  at  once,  and  Persian  and 
Afghanistan  integrity  and  independence 
were  to  be  respected  by  both  sides.  Rus- 
sia was  to  evacuate  Asiatic  Turkey  occu- 
pied by  her  troops,  and  Erivan,  Kars  and 
Batoum  (the  oil  and  manganese  regions) 
in  the  Caucasus. 


Q. — Could  Germany  get  rich  out  of 
Russia  alone? 

A. — If  a  coalition  of  all  other  nations 
obliged  Germany  to  depend  on  Russia 
alone  as  an  outlet  for  her  commerce  and 
industry,  she  would  have  a  field  which 
may  be  described  as  follows :  European 
Russia  (without  counting  Poland)  is  al- 
most exactly  two-thirds  of  the  area  of  the 
United  States,  and  it  has  30  million  more 
people  than  we  have. 

Yet  this  big  territory,  with  its  bigger 
population  than  ours,  imports  only  one- 
quarter  of  what  we  import — and  we  are 
a  great  producing  nation,  manufacturing 
heavily  for  our  own  consumption,  while 
Russia  needs  goods  from  outside  if  she 
is  to  assume  a  big  place  in  modern  in- 
dustry. 

Even  at  that  low  figure,  however,  the 
world's  imports  into  Russia  were  about 
one-fifth  the  amount  of  Germany's  entire 
annual  export  trade  to  the  whole  world 
before  the  war. 

It  would  appear  that,  with  a  free  hand 
to  industrialize  Russia  swiftly,  expand 
railroads,  etc.,  Germany  might  reasonably 
expect,  in  a  very  small  number  of  years, 
to  draw  nearly  as  much  wealth  from  her 
neighbor  as  she  does  now  from  the  whole 
world. 


Q. — How  much  of  Russia's  total 
imports  did  Germany  have? 

A. — Before  the  war  she  had  about  one- 
half  of  the  total  import  business  of  Rus- 
sia. England  came  next,  but  very  far  be- 
hind. We  came  third,  and  a  very  bad 
third.  Then  came  France  and  Austria- 
Hungary. 

Q. — What  did  Russia  import  most- 
ly? 

A. — Machinery  and  woollens  from  Ger- 
many, machinery  and  coal  from  England, 
and  raw  cotton  from  us. 

Q. — How  much  machinery  did  Rus- 
sia import? 

A. — About  85  million  dollars'  worth. 
Germany's  whole  exports  of  machinery 
are  about  300  million  dollars'  worth  nor- 
mally. Russia  could  possibly  absorb  all 
that  if  she  were  industrialized  on  a  scale 
at  all  commensurate  with  her  possibilities. 

Q. — Could  the  Central  Powers  and 
Russia  exist  by  themselves? 

A. — There  is  one  great  staple  of  mod- 
ern commercial  life  which  they  could  not 
produce  within  their  own  territories  in 
sufficient  amount,  whatever  else  they 
might  manage  to  do.  They  depend!  on  the 
outer  world  for  enough  cotton.  At  pres- 
ent their  only  adequate  supply  comes  from 
us  and  from  Egypt,  with  some  from  In- 
dia. 

The  trans-Caucasus,  Russian  Central 
Asia  and  Turkey  put  together  produce 
only  about  one-sixteenth  of  the  produc- 
tion of  our  southern  States.  While  the 
Turkish  production  seems  to  be  increas- 
ing steadily,  it  is  obvious  that  the  supply 
would  fall  ever  so  far  short  of  require- 
ments for  many  years  to  come. 

Q. — How    do    Russia's    railroads 
compare  with  others? 

A. — Russia  (counting  European  Russia 
alone)  has  36,000  miles  of  railroad.  To 
"have  as  many,  proportionately,  as  we  have, 
she  should  have  176,000  miles.  As  it  is, 
she  has  less  railroads  than  Germany, 
though  more  than  half  a  dozen  Germanics 
could  be  stuck  away  in  Russia. 


175 


176 


Questions  and  Ansivers 


Q. — Did  Russia  cede  the  Caucasus 
territories  to  Germany  in  the 
peace  treaty? 

A. — The  word  "cession"  was  not  used. 
Russia  simply  agreed  to  evacuate  the  "dis- 
tricts of  Erivan,  Kars  and  Batoum,"  and 
not  to  "interfere  in  the  reorganization  of 
the  constitutional  or  international  condi- 
tion of  these  districts,  but  leave  it  to  the 
populations  to  carry  out  the  reorganiza- 
tion in  agreement  with  the  neighboring 
States,  particularly  Turkey." 

Q. — Did  this  clause  cover  the  whole 
Caucasus  ? 

A. — No.  It  covered  only  that  portion  of 
the  Caucasus  immediately  adjoining  Tur- 
key on  the  eastern  Black  Sea  coast.  It 
is,  indeed,  a  part  that  was  Turkish  until 
Russian  conquest  of  the  Caucasus  made 
it  Russian.  Geographically,  it  is  small, 
being  only  20,000  square  miles  (about  half 
the  size  of  New  York  State),  whereas 
that  whole  region  of  the  trans-Caucasus 
(the  formerly  Turkish  Caucasus  south  of 
the  Caucasus  Mountains)  is  95,000  square 
miles.  But  in  wealth  it  is  of  tremendous 
importance. 

Q. — Is  Batoum  the  richest  oil-field 
in  Russia? 

A. — No.  Batoum  is  the  pipe-line  termi- 
nus and  the  shipping  port  for  some  of  the 
richest  oil-fields  in  the  world,  but  the 
trans-Caucasus  province  that  is  the  big 
oil-producer  is  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Caucasian  peninsula — the  province  ^of 
Baku  on  the  Caspian  Sea,  which  remains 
to  Russia. 

The  oil-fields  in  the  region  generally 
are,  however,  quite  rich  enough  to  be  a 
tempting  and  valuable  prize.  But  there 
is  another  still  greater  value  to  the  Ger- 
mans in  control  of  Batoum  and  Kars. 
Batoum  and  a  neighboring  city  named 
Poti  are  the  seaport  points  for  what  prob- 
ably are  the  richest  manganese  deposits  in 
the  world.  This  district  produced  almost 
one-third  of  all  the  manganese  obtained 
in  1913.  What  this  means  to  Germany's 
iron  and  steel  industry  is  clear. 

Q. — Has  the  Batoum  region  coal 
and  minerals? 

A. — It  has  copper  and  coal.  It  is  said 
that  one  mine  alone,  very  inadequately 
worked  now,  has  been  examined  by  ex- 
perts who  estimate  that  it  has  deposits  of 
probably  il/t  million  tons  of  ore  that  runs 
about  twice  as  rich  as  American  ore  does. 
There  also  is  asphalt  and  rock  salt  in  the 
region. 


Q. — Is  Russia  overwhelmingly  im- 
portant to  the  world's  oil  sup- 
ply? 

A. — In  1000  Russia  produced  thirty-one 
per  cent  of  the  oil  of  the  world,  but 
owing  to  the  slackening  of  the  Baku  out- 
put, this  percentage,  of  course,  has  de- 
creased heavily.  The  true  wealth  of  the 
Russian  oil-supplies  has  hardly  been 
touched,  it  is  said. 

Q. — Are  the  Russian  peasants  very 
poor? 

A. — There  are  large  districts  where,  it 
is  said,  the  average  annual  expenditure  of 
a  peasant  on  all  his  needs  is  not  more 
than  20  roubles  ($10)  a  yearl  Even 
this  tiny  sum  cannot  all  be  spent  on  him- 
self. He  must  buy  implements  out  of  it, 
make  repairs,  etc., — if  he  can.  In  one 
district  of  28,000  of  these  small  peasant 
farms,  io,oco  do  not  own  a  single  horse 
between  them,  and  the  10,000  farms  to- 
gether do  not  own  fifty  modern  agricul- 
tural machines. 

Q. — Was  there  a  Russian  republic 
once? 

A. — In  the  city  of  Novgorod,  south 
from  Petrograd,  is  a  monument  erected 
in  1862  to  commemorate  the  i.oooth  anni- 
versary of  the  founding  of  that  city.  In- 
cidentally, it  commemorates  a  Russian  re- 
public which  held  its  own  for  many  cen- 
turies. 

The  people  of  Novgorod  (who  probably 
descended  from  Danish  sea-rovers  under 
Rurik)  obtained  a  charter  from  their 
Prince,  Yaroslav,  and  after  about  a  cen- 
tury of  this  semi-free  existence,  they 
elected  their  own  Princes  through  a  popu- 
lar assembly  or  council  called  the  vyache. 
The  vyache  soon  became  the  real  ruler, 
and  thrust  the  Princes  out  whenever  they 
failed  to  please.  In  1120  they  decided  to 
do  without  Princes  altogether,  and  after 
that  were  governed  by  their  vyache.  By 
the  fourteenth  century  the  community 
(which  consisted  mostly  of  powerful 
merchants)  had  become  so  great  that  it 
included  other  large  towns,  such  as  Pskov. 
They  fought  Swedes  and  Germans  suc- 
cessfully, and,  with  the  help  of  the  Lithu- 
anians, beat  back  the  invasion  of  the 
Princes  of  Moscow  several  times.  In 
about  1475,  however,  they  were  overcome 
and  Ivan  III  of  Moscow  took  away  their 
charter.  In  1570  Ivan  IV  (Ivan  the  Ter- 
rible) subjugated  them  entirely,  massa- 
cring 15,000  or,  as  some  accounts  have  it, 
60,000. 


Restless  Russia 


177 


Q. — What  did  the  Russian  Revo- 
lutionists want? 

A. — After  the  abdication  of  the  Czar, 
the  Provisional  Revolutionary  Govern- 
ment announced  the  following  principles : 
(l)  Amnesty  for  all  political  and  relig- 
ious offenses ;  (2)  freedom  of  speech, 
press,  association,  labor,  right  to  strike, 
and  extension  of  these  liberties  to  troops 
so  far  as  conditions  permit;  (3)  abolition 
of  all  social,  religious  and  national  re- 
strictions ;  (4)  summoning  of  a  constit- 
uent assembly;  (5)  substitution  for  the 
police  of  a  national  militia  with  elective 
heads ;  (6)  communal  election  with  uni- 
versal suffrage ;  (7)  troops  that  partici- 
pated in  revolution  not  to  be  disarmed, 
but  not  to  leave  Petrograd ;  (8)  severe 
military  discipline  in  active  service,  but 
all  restrictions  on  soldiers  in  enjoyment 
of  social  rights  granted  to  other  citizens 
to  be  abolished. 

Q. — Who  formed  the  first  Russian 
Provisional   Government? 

A. — Prime  Minister  and  Minister  of  the 
Interior,  Prince  George  Lvoff ;  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  Paul  Miliukoff ;  Min- 
insters  of  War  and  Marine,  Alexander 
Guchkoff ;  Minister  of  Finance,  Michael 
Tereshchenko ;  Minister  of  Justice,  Alex- 
ander Kerensky;  Procurator  of  the  Holy 
Synod,  Vladimir  Lvoff. 

Q. — Was  the  Provisional  Govern- 
ment recognized  by  the  Allies  ? 

A. — It  was  recognized  quite  promptly 
by  all  the  Allies,  by  most  of  the  neutral 
nations,  and  by  the  United  States,  which 
was  not  then  at  war  with  Germany,  but 
was  fast  moving  toward  it. 

Q.— Who  are  the  Bolsheviki? 

A. — They  are  Russian  Socialist  Demo- 
crats. They  are  not  a  new  party,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  one  of  the  older  political 
factions  of  Russia.  The  men  who  now 
call  themselves  Bolsheviki  were  originally 
the  very  radical  element  of  the  Russian 
Socialist  Democratic  party,  representing, 
in  a  broad  way,  the  political  principle  that 
the  proletariat  must  rule,  and  that  the 
fight  of  the  proletariat  is  not  merely 
against  an  autocratic  government,  but 
that  it  is  also  against  the  middle  class — 
the  class  that,  wishing  to  cling  to  its  own 
possessions,  even  though  these  might  be 
meager,  must  necessarily  always  oppose 
the  proletariat's  demand  for  communal 
ownership. 


Q. — Why  are  they  called  Bolshe- 
viki? 

A. — In  1905  there  was  a  great  split  in 
the  party,  and  the  Radicals,  then  under 
the  leadership  of  Nikolai  Lenine,  found 
themselves  in  the  majority.  They  de- 
manded an  immediate  effort  to  secure  a 
maximum  of  the  party's  program,  and 
were,  therefore,  christened  "Bolsheviki" — 
the  men  who  want  more — or  Maximalists. 
Their  more  moderate  opponents  became 
known  as  "Mensheviki" — those  who  de- 
mand less — or  Minimalists.  The  name 
seems  to  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
fact  that  these  "root-and-branch"  parti- 
sans controlled  a  majority  of  the  Social- 
ist Democratic  party.  They  might  be  in 
a  minority  there,  and  among  the  Russian 
people  as  a  whole,  yet  still  be  Bolsheviki. 

The  present  Bolsheviki  party  is  com- 
posed not  only  of  the  original  faction,  but 
also  of  the  radical  faction  of  the  Peas- 
ants' Social  Revolutionary  party,  which 
joined  the  Bolsheviki  in  1917. 

Q. — Were  the  Bolsheviki  backed  by 
the  people  generally? 

A. — They  showed  quite  surprising  pop- 
ular strength  for  a  considerable  time. 
At  the  third  All-Russian  Conference  of 
Councils  of  Workmen's  and  Soldiers'  and 
Peasants'  Delegates,  which  was  held  in 
Petrograd  during  the  end  of  January, 
1918,  the  opposition  to  Bolsheviki  rule 
was  so  weak,  both  in  numbers  and  in 
spirit,  that  it  was  almost  negligible.  This 
was  unexpected,  since  this  conference 
was  attended  by  men  who,  under  the 
Soviet  or  Local  Council  systems  of  Rus- 
sia, might  be  supposed  to  represent  the 
people  very  directly,  and  it  had  been  be- 
lieved that  they  would  have  marked  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  with  the  radical  Pet- 
rograd Socialists. 

Q. — Did  the  Soviets  support  the 
Bolsheviki  peace  with  Ger- 
many? 

A. — The  All-Russian  Congress  of  So- 
viets, assembled  in  Moscow  to  act  on  the 
peace  treaty  submitted  by  Lenine,  con- 
sisted of  1,164  delegates,  soldiers,  sailors 
and  peasants  being  in  the  majority.  The 
assembly  voted  overwhelmingly  to  accept 
the  treaty,  though  voicing  its  unrelenting 
enmity  toward  the  German  military  and 
capitalistic  government. 

Q. — What  is  Lenine's  political 
creed? 

A. — Nikolai  Lenine's  creed  apparently 
remains  the  one  he  has  preached  all  his 


Questions  and  Answers 


life — the  Proletarian  Revolution.  This  is 
unlike  the  socialism  of  the  men  under 
Kerensky,  who  fought  for  a  general  so- 
cialism. The  Lenine  school  holds  that 
the  class  struggle  must  be  fought  out  first, 
and  that  the  undermost  class  is  the  more 
numerous,  and  must,  therefore,  be  placed 
on  top.  In  following  out  this  idea  to 
practical  issues,  he  holds  that  the  land 
question  is  the  foundation  of  all  poverty 
in  Russia  and  that,  therefore,  it  must  be 
solved  first.  The  solution,  as  he  sees  it, 
is  to  proceed  to  immediate  and  complete 
appropriation  of  all  privately  owned  land. 

Q. — How   much   privately   owned 
land  is  there  in  Russia? 

A. — Lenine  said  recently  that  df  207,000- 
ooo  acres  in  the  hands  of  private  proprie- 
tors, 21,000,000  acres  alone  were  owned 
by  a  so-called  "Department  of  Appan- 
ages," really  a  little  group  of  Romanoff 
Grand  Dukes.  One  such  family,  he  said, 
owns  more  land  than  is  possessed  by  half 
a  million  average  peasant  families.  He 
enumerates  924  rich  families  in  Russia 
which  hold  27,000  acres  each. 

Q. — Is  not  much  land  owned  by 
peasants? 

A. — One  of  the  declarations  of  the  Bol- 
sheviki  political  principles  is  that  there 
are  about  several  million  of  men  ^  of  the 
peasant  class,  known  as  Zazhtochnii  (rich 
peasants),  who  gamble  in  land,  hold  it 
for  debt,  etc.,  and  starve  the  poor  peas- 
ants. These  oppressive  bourgeois  peas- 
ants were  under  the  Bolsheviki  ban  like 
the  great  land-owners. 

Q. — Is  Russia  a  true  Slav  State? 

A. — A  majority  of  the  population  is 
Slav,  but  Russia  is  by  no  means  a  com- 
pletely Slav  State.  The  race  mixture  is 
as  remarkable  as  that  in  Austria-Hungary. 
Of  the  132,000,000  population  of  Euro- 
pean Russia  in  1915,  92,000,000  were  Slavs, 
12,000,000  were  Asiatic  Tartars,  5,500,000 
were  Finns  (akin  to  the  Magyars  of  Hun- 
gary), 5,000,000  were  Jews,  3,000,000  were 
of  Latin  and  Germanic  stock,  and  3,000,- 
ooo  Lithuanians. 

Q. — What  races  inhabit  Russia? 

A. — Slavs,  Lithuanians,  Letts,  Semites 
(Jews),  Poles,  Greeks,  Swedes,  Rouman- 
ians, Armenians,  Persians,  Kurds,  Gypsies, 
Esthonians,  Finns,  Lapps,  Samoyedes, 
Tartars,  Bashkirs,  Turks,  Kirghiz,  Uz- 
begs,  Yakuts,  Kalmucks,  Georgians,  Cir- 
cassians, and  Caucasians  (natives  of  the 
Caucasus). 


Q. — What  was  Russia  originally? 

A. — Originally,  the  huge  territory  in 
eastern  Europe  now  covered  by  Russia, 
was  divided  among  separate  tribes  and 
nationalities,  which  had  nothing  in  com- 
mon. Thus,  at  the  death  of  Charlemagne 
(814  A.D.),  when  the  empires  of  western 
Europe  had  attained  splendor  and  a  de- 
cidedly high  civilization,  the  Russian  ter- 
ritory was  practically  without  any  con- 
nection or  communication  with  that  west- 
ern civilization.  The  Baltic  coast  was 
held  by  a  Lettish  race,  who  formed  a  state 
there  called  Esthonia.  The  west  and  cen- 
ter of  the  area  was  known  as  Slavonia, 
and  the  greater  part  of  the  Black  Sea 
coast,  and  the  land  reaching  well  toward 
the  north  of  Russia  on  the  Asian  bound- 
ary, was  held  by  the  very  powerful  King- 
dom of  the  Khazars,  who  were  Tartars. 

Q. — What    is    the    Russian    Holy 
Synod  ? 

A. — It  is  the  supreme  organ  of  gov- 
ernment of  the  orthodox  church  in  Rus- 
sia. It  was  established  in  1721,  and,  dur- 
ing the  Czardom,  was  presided  over  by  a 
lay  procurator  representing  the  Czar.  The 
other  members  of  the  Holy  Synod  were 
the  three  "Metropolitans"  of  Moscow,  St. 
Petersburg  and  Kiev,  the  Archbishop  of 
Georgia,  and  a  number  of  bishops  sitting 
in  rotation. 

Q. — Are  all  Russians  members  of 
the  Greek  Catholic  Church? 

A. — In  1903  an  estimate  was  made  that 
of  140,000,000  Christians  of  various  sects, 
about  87,000,000  were  members  of  the  or- 
thodox or  Russian  State  Church. 

Q. — What  are  the  other  chief  re- 
ligions in  Russia? 

A. — Of  the  population  (estimated  at 
from  160  to  180  millions)  living  in  all 
the  Russian  Empire,  an  area  about  2^ 
times  as  big  as  the  United  States,  about 
fifteen  million  are  Mohammedans.  Bud- 
dhists, or  other  non-Christians,  about  five 
million  are  of  Jewish  faith,  and  one  hun- 
dred and  forty  million  are  of  the  various 
sects  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Q. — What  does  "bourgeois"  mean? 

A. — The  word  means  literally  "bur- 
gher," or  the  burgher  class — that  is,  the 
prosperous  middle  class  of  Europe.  It 
became  a  term  of  opprobrium  during  the 
French  Revolution,  when  the  middle 
classes,  which  themselves  had  suffered 
under  the  tyrannical  rule  of  the  monarch- 


Restless  Russia 


179 


teal  aristocracy,  became  frightened  by  the 
excesses  of  the  lower  classes,  and  in  their 
desire  for  orderly  government  leaned  to- 
ward restoration  of  the  monarchy — or 
were  suspected  of  doing  so. 

Q. — What  do  the  Russians  mean 
by  "bourgeois"? 

A. — In  Russia  the  term  is  now  applied 
to  everybody  whose  interests  and  leanings 
differ  from  those  of  the  masses.  All  such 
persons  are  accused  of  capitalistic  sym- 
pathies, and  are  under  suspicion  by  the 
radical  groups.  The  effect  is  to  class 
among  the  bourgeois  many  so-called  in- 
tellectuals and  more  moderate  liberals,  to 
whom,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  first  suc- 
cess of  the  revolution  largely  was  due. 
It  was  because  of  his  alignment  with  this 
class  that  Professor  Milyukoff  lost  stand- 
ing with  the  radical  revolutionaries. 

Q. — Would  not  the  bourgeois  be 
likely  to  cling  to  republican- 
ism? 

A. — The  Bolsheviki  fear  and  believe 
that  the  "bourgeois"  element  of  the  en- 
tire world  (and  perhaps  Russia  in  par- 
ticular, because  Russian  political  ambition 
is  extraordinarily  small  among  the  mid- 
dle class)  would  be  guided  mainly  by  the 
class-desire  for  an  "orderly"  government 
beyond  everything  else.  Business,  trade, 
money-earning,  money-making — these  are 
wholly  natural  (and  not  in  themselves 
blameable)  purposes  of  the  great  middle 
classes  of  the  world.  Radical  reform- 
ers, who  are  willing  to  suffer  privations, 
and  even  to  die  for  their  beliefs,  feel  sure 
that  the  bourgeois  would  not  be  willing 
to  suffer  for  a  great  ideal  reform,  but 
would  weaken  and  turn  to  any  powerful 
party  that  might  assure  them  of  quiet  and 
peace. 

Q. — Are  there  separate  govern- 
ments in  Russia? 

A. — Yes,  and  there  always  have  been, 
though  most  of  them  were  simply  little 
autocracies,  ruled  by  governors  who  rep- 
resented Petrograd.  There  are  78  of 
these  local  government  divisions,  and  50 
of  them  are  in  Russia  proper.  The  local 
affairs  (parish  affairs)  are  in  the  hands 
of  peasants'  committees.  Under  the  revo- 
lutionary government  there  were  about 
17,000  of  these  parishes  or  cantons. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  zemstvos? 

A. — They  are  an  old  form  of  assemblies 
elected  for  each  district.  A  Russian  dis- 
trict corresponds  in  a  general  way  to  a 


county.  Zemstvos  were  elected  by  a  re- 
stricted vote,  and  were  purely  deliberative 
local  bodies  with  closely  circumscribed 
rights  and  duties.  Their  importance  and 
efficiency  differed  greatly  in  various  parts 
of  the  country,  but,  as  a  whole,  they  did 
good  work.  Undoubtedly  they  spread  the 
popular  desire  for  self-government,  and 
afforded  practical  experience  of  it. 

Q. — Did  the  zemstvos  meet  during 
the  war? 

A. — Prince  George  Lvoff,  first  premier 
of  the  provisional  government,  later  de- 
nounced and  dismissed,  was  a  strong  be- 
liever and  supporter  of  the  zemstvos.  It 
was  due  primarily  to  his  efforts  that  a 
voluntary  council  of  all  zemstvos 
formed  under  his  leadership  during  the 
darkest  period  of  Russia's  defeats  by  the 
armies  of  the  Central  Powers.  This  vol- 
untary body  was  chiefly  responsible  for 
the  improved  supply  of  food,  munitions, 
and  medical  aid  to  the  forces  at  the  front 
when  the  incompetency  and  corruption  of 
the  established  government  were  discov- 
ered. 

The  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  zems- 
tvos was  in  the  year  before  the  great  war 
began  (1913). 

Q. — Did  the  zemstvos  rule  cities 
also? 

A. — No.  They  are  local  elective  assem- 
blies for  the  population  dwelling  outside 
the  towns.  Established  in  1864,  they  were 
of  two  sorts — cantonal,  in  which  even 
peasants  had  a  limited  representation,  and 
provincial,  composed  of  delegates  elected 
from  the  cantonal  zemstvos ;  they  were 
to  meet  annually,  and  exercise  large  pow- 
ers in  relation  to  education,  public  health, 
roads,  etc.  In  1800  their  powers  were 
greatly  restricted,  but  in  1905  they  re- 
gained much  of  the  initiative  which  they 
had  lost.  The  role  of  the  congress  of 
zemstvos,  composed  of  leading  members 
of  the  local  bodies,  who  in  November, 
1904,  and  June,  1905,  assembled  at  Petro- 
grad, has  often  been  compared  to  that  jf 
the  Assembly  of  Notables  in  the  French 
Revolution. 

Q.— What  is  the  Duma? 

A. — A  Russian  Parliament  or  Congress 
created  under  the  old  regime.  It  was  an 
elective  body  representing  the  people  it 
large,  and  was  created  August  6,  1905,  as 
a  result  of  a  popular  uprising.  In  Octo- 
ber, 1905,  it  received  guarantees  of  free- 
dom of  speech,  conscience,  assembly,  and 
association,  and  of  inviolability  of  the  per- 


i8o 


Questions  and  Answers 


son.      These    guarantees,    however,    were 
not  kept  by  the  Government. 

At  the  same  time  the  body  then  known 
as  the  Council  of  the  Empire  was  made 
a  legislative  council  and  became  the  upper 
house  of  Russia's  Parliament. 

Q. — What    was    the    term    of    a 
Duma? 

A. — Constitutionally,  the  members  of 
the  Duma  were  elected  for  a  term  of  five 
years.  The  first  and  second  Dumas,  how- 
ever, lasted  only  a  few  weeks  each.  The 
third  Duma  completed  its  term.  The 
fourth  Duma,  elected  in  November,  1912, 
was  in  session  at  the  outbreak  of  the  revo- 
lution, and,  though  not  actually  a  prime 
factor  in  its  inception,  was  sympathetic 
toward  it,  and  was  a  means  through  which 
anarchy  was  avoided. 

Q. — How    were    Duma    members 
elected? 

A. — By  a  process  which  is,  perhaps,  the 
most  complicated  in  the  world.  The  origi- 
nal manifesto  that  brought  the  Duma  into 
being  was  altered  by  Imperial  ukase  in 
1907,  it  having  been  found  that  under  the 
original  arrangement  the  Cadet  party — 
the  Constitutional  Democrats,  which  in- 
cluded the  Socialists  and  exiles  returned 
to  Russia  when  the  constitution  was 
promised  in  1905 — was  in  overwhelming 
strength.  The  Cadets  were  so  obnoxious 
to  the  government  that  the  first  Duma 
was  dissolved  at  once.  When  the  Cadets 
proved  again  to  be  in  great  majority  in 
the  second,  it  was  resolved  to  alter  the 
electoral  law,  so  that  representation 
should  be  more  conservative.  The  mem- 
bers from  Siberia,  the  Caucasus  and  Po- 
land were  reduced  from  89  to  39,  the 
Central  Asian  Steppes  were  disfranchised 
altogether  (they  had  before  this  sent  23 
members),  and  the  number  of  representa- 
tives in  all  was  reduced  from  524  to  442. 
The  members  were  to  be  elected  by  a 
complicated  system  of  electoral  colleges 
which  cou!d  be,  and  were,  so  manipulated 
as  to  leave  the  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
bureaucracy  and  landed  proprietors. 

Q. — Had  the  Duma  much  power? 

A. — According  to  the  constitution  it 
had  very  little.  It  was  allowed  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  army  or  navy. 
Legislation  was  in  the  hands  of  Minis- 
ters, who  were  responsible  not  to  the 
Duma,  but  to  the  Czar.  Members  might 
originate  legislation,  but  not  until  it  had 
the  approval  of  the  Minister  of  the  De- 
partment concerned.  If,  by  a  two-thirds 


majority,  the  Duma  arraigned  the  action 
of  a  Minister,  the  President  of  the  Im- 
perial Council  laid  the  case  before  the 
Czar,  who  decided  the  matter.  The  Duma 
had  little  real  power  over  finance,  more 
than  half  the  annual  expenditure  of  the 
country  in  times  of  peace  being  entirely 
outside  the  control  of  Parliament.  Min- 
isters could  and  did  impose  taxation  with- 
out consulting  the  Duma  at  all,  for  when 
it  was  not  sitting  the  Czar  had  the  power 
to  issue  ordinances  having  the  force  of 
law.  He  had  also  the  power  of  dissolving 
the  Duma  or  proroguing  it  whenever  he 
liked.  Despite  this,  the  Duma,  during  its 
last  three  or  four  years,  established  its 
position  so  well  that  it  was  beginning  to 
take  a  larger  share  in  public  affairs,  and 
began  to  brook  no  curbing.  The  Council 
of  Soldiers'  and  Workers'  representatives 
assumed  superior  power  soon  after  the 
revolution. 

Q. — Were  workmen  represented  in 
the  Duma? 

A. — They  were  specially  treated.  Every 
industrial  concern  employing  fifty  work- 
ers or  more,  elected  one  or  more  dele- 
gates to  the  electoral  college  of  the  par- 
ticular government  in  which  it  was  situ- 
ated. If  it  were  not  for  the  provision 
that  at  least  one  Duma  member  must  be 
chosen  in  each  government  from  each  of 
the  five  classes  represented  in  the  college, 
it  is  obvious  that  the  progressive  elements 
would  not  have  had  any  representation  at 
all  in  the  Russian  Parliament. 

This  rule,  however,  made  it  imperative 
that  a  fixed  minimum  of  peasant  members 
must  be  sent  to  the  Duma,  a  fixed  mini- 
mum of  landed  proprietors,  and  so  on. 
But  the  Radical  elements  in  the  Duma 
practically  all  came  from  the  cities  of 
Petrograd,  Moscow,  Kiev,  Odessa,  Riga, 
Warsaw  and  Lodz.  These  seven  cities 
elected  their  representatives  for  the  Duma 
direct,  although  even  in  their  case  spe- 
cial precautions  were  taken  to  give  the 
advantage  to  the  wealthy  electors. 

Q. — What  was  the  Council  of  the 
Empire  ? 

A. — There  was  of  old  an  Upper  House 
called  the  Council  of  the  Empire,  consist- 
ing of  196  members,  half  being  nominated 
by  the  Emperor  and  half  being  elected. 
The  Czar  nominated  his  own  Ministers, 
who  were  ex  officio  members  of  the  Coun- 
cil. Of  the  98  elected  numbers  the  Monks 
selected  three,  the  clergy  three,  the  Cor- 
porations of  Nobles  eighteen,  the  Acade- 
mies of  Science  and  the  Universities  six, 
the  Chambers  of  Commerce  six,  the  In- 


Restless  Russia 


181 


dustrial  Councils  six,  the  Zemstvos  thirty- 
four,  Governments  having  no  Zemstvos 
sixteen,  and  Poland  six.  Another  body, 
called  the  Senate,  had  really  nothing  to 
do  with  legislative  matters.  It  was  ac- 
tually a  sort  of  Supreme  Court,  but  per- 
formed a  great  variety  of  functions.  All 
its  members  were  nominees  of  the  Czar. 

Q. — What  does  "Soviet"  mean? 

A. — It  is  the  Russian  word  for  council. 
It  appears  frequently  in  the  newspaper 
dispatches  as  a  brief  and  convenient  syn- 
onym for  the  Council  of  Workmen's  and 
Soldiers'  Deputies. 

Q. — What  are  the  various  Russian 
"Councils"? 

A. — They  spring  from  certain  Work- 
men's, People's,  Peasants'  and  Soldiers' 
Councils  that  were  formed  in  several 
places  in  Russia  during  the  disorders  in 
1905- 

They  were  remembered  when  the  1917 
revolution  came.  The  Petrograd  Council 
of  Workmen's  and  Soldiers'  Deputies 
was  organized  before  the  Provisional 
Government  was  formed.  The  Petrograd 
Council  was  soon  supplemented  by  dele- 
gates from  other  councils,  and  this  en- 
larged council  launched  the  important 
campaign  for  the  publication  of  secret 
treaties,  and  for  a  general  peace  at  the 
earliest  possible  moment. 

Then  an  All-Russian  Congress  of  Coun- 
cils of  Workmen's  and  Soldiers'  Deputies 
held  a  joint  session  to  discuss  vast  and 
radical  economic  reforms. 

The  Congress  adjourned  in  July,  leav- 
ing a  permanent  executive  committee,  to 
which  the  Socialist  ministers  of  the  coa- 
lition cabinet  were  held  responsible.  The 
executive  committee  supported  the  Keren- 
sky  Government  until  the  Kornilov  affair, 
when,  under  the  influence  of  the  Bolshe- 
viki,  it  began  to  take  a  more  radical  line 
again. 

The  newly  elected  municipal  govern- 
ments were  tending  to  replace  the  Coun- 
cils of  Workmen's  and  Soldiers'  Deputies 
when  the  Bolsheviki  uprising  of  Novem- 
ber, 1917,  occurred. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  the  "Cama- 
rilla"? 

A. — "Camarilla"  is  a  Spanish  equivalent 
for  the  English  "cabal."  The  name  was 
applied  to  the  group  of  men  and  women 
who  surrounded  the  Czar.  Among  them 
were  to  be  found  politicians,  generals, 
and  priests.  Some  of  them  were,  very 
probably,  pro-German,  and,  previous  to 


the  revolution,  were  working  for  a  sepa- 
rate peace.  Others,  like  Rasputin,  were 
primarily  interested  in  gaining  as  much 
power  and  wealth  as  possible.  The  Czar 
and  Czarina  were  influenced  excessively 
by  this  group,  and  nothing  of  which  they 
disapproved  had  much  chance  of  reach- 
ing the  ear  or  eye  of  Russia's  autocrat. 

Q. — Who  was  Rasputin? 

A. — A  Russian  monk,  known  as  the 
"holy  devil"  of  the  Russian  Court,  who 
is  thought  to  have  wielded  extraordinary 
and  fateful  power  over  the  Czarina,  and, 
through  her,  over  the  Czar,  and  have  ma- 
terially hastened  the  downfall  of  the 
Romanoff  dynasty  by  inciting  them  to 
more  and  more  merciless  autocratic  meas- 
ures and  intolerant  policies  against  lib- 
eralism. 

Q. — Why  did  the  Bolsheviki  refuse 
to  let  Ambassadors  draw 
money  from  banks? 

A. — In  order  to  compel  the  British 
Government  to  give  the  Bolsheviki  Gov- 
ernment complete  control  of  Russian 
funds  in  the  Bank  of  England.  In  real- 
ity, the  object  was  far  greater  than  merely 
that  of  gaining  access  to  funds.  To  ad- 
mit their  right  to  the  Russian  funds 
meant  to  acknowledge  the  Bolsheviki 
Government. 

Q. — When  was  the  Russian  Con- 
stituent Assembly  dissolved? 

A. — The  Russian  Constituent  Assembly 
held  its  first  meeting  on  January  18,  1918, 
and  after  a  single  turbulent  session  was 
dissolved  by  armed  Bolshevist  sailors  in 
pursuance  of  a  degree  issued  by  Premier 
Lenine.  The  assembly  was  succeeded  by 
the  All-Russian  Congress  of  Soviets 
(councils  of  workmen  and  soldiers), 
which  held  its  first  meeting  on  January 
22nd. 

Q. — What  was  the  personnel  of  the 
American  mission  to  Russia? 

A. — Elihu  Root,  Charles  R.  Crane,  Gen- 
eral Hugh  M.  Scott,  Rear-Admiral  Glen- 
non,  John  R.  Mott,  Charles  Edward  Rus- 
sell, and  Cyrus  McCormick. 

Q. — What  did  Russia  owe  the 
United  States  when  she  with- 
drew from  the  war? 

A. — At  that  time  Russia  owed  us  $187,- 
779,000 — that  is,  we  had  advanced  this 
money  for  Russian  account  to  our 


182 


Questions  and  Answers 


own  manufacturers  and  producers  for 
goods.  Many  of  these  had  been  sent  to 
Russia  and  were,  presumably,  piled  up 
in  Vladivostock  when  the  Russians  signed 
the  peace  with  the  Germans.  The  United 
States  held  Russian  bonds  as  security  for 
the  loan,  which  was  part  of  a  total  credit 
that  had  been  established  for  $325,000,000. 

Q. — How  many  prisoners  of  war 
were  in  Russia  in  1918? 

A. — Apparently  about  iJ/2  million  Ger- 
mans and  Austro-Hungarians,  with  a 
sprinkling  of  Turks  and  Bulgars.  Most 
of  the  prisoners  were  Austro-Hungarians, 
for  the  Russian  captures  of  German  sol- 
diers were  comparatively  small,  as  fig- 
ures go  in  this  huge  war.  Not  all  of 
these  prisoners  were  soldiers,  either.  Rus- 
sia interned  a  very  large  number  of  Ger- 
mans and  Austrians  who  were  in  her  pos- 
session when  war  began. 

Q. — Did  she  send  the  prisoners  to 
Siberia? 

A. — She  sent  most  of  them  to  Siberia. 
Little  was  said  about  it  early  in  the  war, 
because  the  name  "Siberia"  was  recog- 
nized by  the  Allies  as  possibly  conveying 
a  sense  of  tragic  exile  and  suffering". 
We  must  remember,  however,  that  Siberia 
is  not  at  all  the  forbidding  country  that 
past  generations  believed  it  to  be.  It  is 
undeniable  that  the  long  journey  through 
a  country  with  inadequate  rail  facilities, 
and  with  very  inadequate  places  of  rest, 
was  very  hard ;  but  when  the  prisoners 
arrived  at  their  destinations,  they  were, 
probably,  not  badly  off.  The  innate  kind- 
liness of  the  Russian  population  would 
do  much  to  alleviate  their  lot  as  far  as 
insufficient  resources  permitted. 

Q. — When  was  the  Russian  Red 
Army  organized? 

A. — "The  New  Workmen's  and  Peas- 
ants' Red  Army"  was  named  in  an  offi- 
cial communication,  January  31,  1918,  of 
the  Bolsheviki  Government  of  Russia,  as 
being  ready  to  "serve  to  support  the  com- 
ing social  revolution  in  Europe." 

Q. — When  was  the  name  of  St. 
Petersburg  changed  to  Petro- 
grad? 

A. — It  was  done  by  Imperial  ukase  on 
September  I,  1914.  The  city  then  had  a 
population  of  well  over  2,000.000,  but 
after  the  Grand  Duke  evacuated  Poland 
this  was  temporarily  increased  by  almost 
another  million. 


Q. — How  many  Prime  Ministers 
has  Russia  had  since  the  war? 

A. — Seven  :  Kokovtsoff,  Gpremykin, 
Sturmer,  Trepoff,  Prince  Golitzin,  Prince 
Lvoff  and  Kerensky.  Then  came  the  rule 
of  Lenine  and  the  Bolsheviki  party. 

Q. — How  many  men  did  Russia 
send  to  the  front  in  the  first 
three  months? 

A. — Russia  put  into  the  field  during 
the  first  weeks  of  the  war  about  a  mil- 
lion and  a  quarter,  which  grew  to  per- 
haps two  million  and  a  half  by  the  win- 
ter of  1914-1915. 

Q. — Did  Tolstoy  foretell  events  of 
the  war? 

A. — In  1910  he  wrote  an  essay  ad- 
dressed to  the  Czar,  the  Kaiser,  and  King 
George,  in  which  he  foretold  that  com- 
mercialism would  set  the  world  afire  with 
the  flames  of  war  and  bigotry.  He  said : 

"The  great  conflagration  will  start 
about  1912,  set  by  the  torch  of  war,  in 
the  countries  of  southeastern  Europe.  It 
will  develop  into  a  destructive  calamity 
in  1913.  In  that  year  I  see  all  Europe 
in  flames  and  bleeding.  I  hear  the  lam- 
entations of  huge  battlefields.  But 
about  the  year  1915  a  strange  figure  from 
the  north — a  new  Napoleon — enters  the 
stage  of  the  bloody  drama.  He  is  a  man 
of  little  militaristic  training,  a  writer  or 
a  journalist,  but  in  his  grip  most  of  Eu- 
rope will  remain  till  1925.  The  end  of  the 
great  calamity  will  mark  a  new  political 
era  for  the  old  world.  There  will  be  left 
no  empires  and  kingdoms,  but  the  world 
will  form  a  federation  of  the  United 
States  of  Nations.  There  will  remain 
only  four  great  giants — the  Anglo-Saxons, 
the  Latins,  the  Slavs,  and  the  Mongol- 
ians." 

Q. — Did  Tolstoy  not  also  prophesy 
a  new  Messiah? 

A. — Yes.  In  that  same  ess"ay  he  said : 
"After  the  year  1925  I  see  a  change  in 
religious  sentiments.  Bigotry  has  brought 
about  the  fall  of  the  church.  The  ethical 
idea  has  almost  vanished.  Humanity  is 
without  the  moral  feeling.  But  then  a 
great  reformer  arises.  He  will  clear  the 
world  of  the  relics  of  monotheism,  and 
lay  the  cornerstone  of  the  temple  of  pan- 
theism. God,  soul,  spirit,  and  immortal- 
ity will  be  molten  in  a  new  furnace,  and 
I  see  the  peaceful  beginning  of  an  ethical 
era.  The  man  determined  to  this  mission 
is  a  Mongolian-Slav.  He  is  already  walk- 


Restless  Russia 


ing  the  earth — a  man  of  active  affairs. 
He  himself  does  not  now  realize  the  mis- 
sion assigned  to  him  by  a  superior  power." 

Q. — What  is  Brest-Litovsk? 

A. — Brest-Litovsk  is  an  eastern  fron- 
tier town  of  Russian  Poland,  about  one 
hundred  miles  east  of  Warsaw.  It  was 
the  scene  of  the  peace  parleys  between 
the  Germans  and  the  Russian  Bolsheviki 
leaders,  Trotzky  and  Lenine. 

Q. — When    was    the    Czar    over- 
thrown ? 

A. — The  first  news  of  the  revolution  of 
the  Russian  people  and  the  abdication  of 
Czar  Nicholas  came  to  the  world  on 
March  16.  1917.  There  were  intimations 
two  days  before  this  that  some  political 
crisis  was  at  hand,  but  the  reports  were 
so  vague  that  they  gave  little  clue  to  what 
was  going  on.  On  March  18  the  Pro- 
visional Government  issued  its  Appeal 
to  the  People,  and  this  date  has  been  ac- 
cepted as  the  beginning  of  the  new 
regime. 

Q. — How  are  the  Russians  off  for 
food  and  fuel? 

A. — One  of  the  most  reliable  writers, 
who  has  recently  been  in  Russia,  reports 
as  follows : 

"In  Petrograd.  though  I  was  stopping 
at  one  of  the  most  highly  esteemed  Rus- 
sian hotels,  often  in  the  morning  the 
waiter  would  come  up  to  my  room  with 
the  cheerful  tidings  : 

"  'No  sugar  to-day ;  no  butter :  no  eggs ; 
no  milk.'  And  he  would  set  before  me 
a  pot  of  clear  bitter  coffee,  and  a  small 
chunk  of  soggy  black  bread.  But  when  I 
made  trips  to  the  villages,  in  peasant 
huts  I  would  be  regaled  by  my  hospitable 
host  with  white  bread,  rich,  fresh  milk, 
and  also  eggs  and  butter.  I  would  fatten 
on  the  land  for  a  time,  and  then  would 
return  to  my  meager  life  in  that  starved, 
elaborate  hotel. 


"Not  only  was  food  scarce  in  the 
towns,  but  the  people  were  dreading  the 
winter  with  the  low  supply  of  fuel  on 
hand,  especially  in  Moscow.  For,  as  a 
rule,  the  Russians  use  stove  wood  to  heat 
their  homes  and,  though  the  peasants  had 
not  seked  the  forests,  they  felt  that  these 
forests  would  soon  be  their  own ;  there- 
fore, last  summer  they  refused  to  cut 
firewood  for  the  towns." 

Q. — What  does  Russia  owe  for  war 
loans  alone? 

A. — It  owes  for  loans  made  during  the 
Czardom  alone  at  least  25  billions. 

Q. — What   did    Russia   do   in   the 
war? 

A. — Early  in  the  war  she  invaded  east- 
ern Prussia  twice,  but  was  driven  back. 
Then  she  drove  through  eastern  Galicia, 
and  started  invasion  of  Hungary  through 
the  Carpathians. 

In  1915  the  Germans  struck  back  hard, 
and  pushed  Russian  armies  out  of  Poland 
and  to  the  Brest-Litovsk  line.  The  Rus- 
sians lost  Lemberg  and  Warsaw. 

In  1916  they  drove  forward  again,  and 
made  a  grand  campaign  into  Galicia  and 
Volhynia.  drove  the  Turks  almost  wholly 
out  of  Armenia,  threatened  to  smash  the 
whole  Austrian  front,  but  suddenly  were 
caught  by  a  German  counter-offensive  and 
lost  most  of  their  gains. 

In  I9i7<  the  progressive  weakening  of 
the  Russian  front  was  becoming  well 
known,  despite  the  censorship,  and  sud- 
denly in  March,  the  crisis  came  with  the 
revolution  which  dethroned  the  Czar. 

In  1918  various  parts  of  Russia  began 
to  declare  their  independence.  On  Feb- 
ruary 10,  1918,  Russia  was  declared  put 
of  the  war.  There  was  a  brief  reaction 
which  at  first  seemed  important,  but  on 
March  3,  1918,  Russia  made  her  initial 
peace  with  Germany. 


JAPAN  AND  MANCHURIA 


Q. — How  far  would  Japan  have  to 
move  troops  to  attack  the  Ger- 
mans? 

A. — She  would  have  to  move  them 
from  Harbin  or  Vladivostock  over  the 
Siberian  Railroad,  which  is  presumably 
in  no  very  good  condition.  The  length 
of  the  railroad  from  Vladivostock  to 
Moscow  is  5,392  miles.  In  addition,  there 
are  the  sea  transports  from  Japan  to 
the  Asiatic  mainland,  and  the  railroad 
transport  to  Japanese  seaports  from  the 
concentration  centers.  Altogether,  Ja- 
pan's troops  would  have  to  be  moved 
double  the  distance  across  the  American 
continent  between  New  York  and  San 
Francisco. 


Q. — Is    Manchuria    Chinese    terri- 
tory? 

A. — It  is  very  old  Chinese  territory.  It 
was  the  seat  of  the  Manchu  dynasty  which 
ruled  China  for  many  centuries.  But 
when  Russia  expanded  through  Siberia  to 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  Japan  stretched 
herself  and  looked  toward  the  nearby 
Asiatic  continent,  Manchuria's  geograph- 
ical position  turned  out  to  be  unlucky — 
for  China.  Inland  the  territory  lay  in 
such  a  way  that  it  blocked  Russia's 
straight  road  to  her  Siberian  port  of 
Vladivostock.  On  the  sea,  its  coast  was 
opposite  Japan. 

Q. — Is  Manchuria  very  far  north? 

A. — The  easiest  way  to  visualize  the 
geography  of  Manchuria  is  to  understand 
that  the  whole  China  coast,  including 
Manchuria,  occupies  about  the  same  lati- 
tudes as  does  the  American  coast  from 
Cuba  to  Newfoundland.  China  proper 
extends  about  as  far  north  as  New  York 
is  in  our  hemisphere.  Manchuria  occupies 
the  latitudes  north  from  New  York  to 
Newfoundland.  The  geographical  rela- 
tion of  Japan  to  this  territory  may  be 
understood  if  you  will  imagine  the  Jap- 
anese island  empire  lying  along  the 
American  coast  with  its  southern  end 
only  a  hundred  miles  from  Savannah, 
Georgia,  and  its  northern  end  about 
equally  near  to  Nova  Scotia,  while  all 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  between  these  two 
points  is  an  inclosed  sea — the  Sea  of 
Japan. 


Q. — Was  the  Russo-Japanese  war 
about  Manchuria? 

A. — Yes.  From  the  time  of  her  war 
with  China,  Japan  had  been  watching  the 
Asiatic  mainland  more  jealously  with 
every  year.  Russia,  meantime,  was 
thrusting  herself  against  the  northern 
border  of  China  (Manchuria)  with  ever- 
increasing  pressure.  In  1000  came  an 
opportunity.  It  was  the  famous  "Boxer" 
uprising.  Russia  immediately  proclaimed 
that  law  and  order  and  the  security  of 
her  Siberian  frontiers  obliged  her  to  re- 
store tranquillity  in  China,  and  she  moved 
into  Manchuria. 

Then  followed  four  years  of  intricate 
Asiatic  politics  which  involved  not  merely 
Manchuria  but  Korea.  Russia  maintained 
her  hold  despite  Japan's  threats  and  coun- 
ter-moves, and  the  island  empire  sud- 
denly broke  off  diplomatic  relations  and 
began  war  on  Russia  February  8,  1004. 
Japan  was  victorious  on  land  and  sea. 


Q. — How   far   is   Japan   from   the 
Asiatic  mainland? 

A. — The  northern  and  southern  ex- 
tremities of  the  Japanese  group  of  islands 
swing  in  close  to  Asia.  The  rest  of  the 
group  curves  away  in  a  huge  crescent 
from  the  Asiatic  mainland.  Nippon,  the 
biggest  island,  is  453  miles  from  Vladi- 
vostock, across  the  Sea  of  Japan. 


Q. — Was  Chinese  Manchuria  cut 
up  after  the  Russo-Japanese 
war? 

A. — It  was  not  "cut  up."  It  was  ar- 
tistically and  scientifically  penetrated.  By 
the  Portsmouth  peace  treaty,  Russia  ceded 
to  Japan  not  only  the  Chinese  lease  of 
Port  Arthur,  but  also  the  railroad  ex- 
tending northward  into  Manchuria  for 
about  five  hundred  miles.  This  is  the 
railroad  that  runs  northward  to  Harbin, 
the  town  where  Chinese,  Japanese  and 
Russian  interests  come  to  a  meeting 
point. 

Harbin  is  on  the  border  between  north- 
ern Manchuria  and  China  proper,  and  it 
is.  furthermore,  on  the  Siberian  railroad. 
Thus  it  is  a  "strategic  junction  point." 
In  addition,  it  is  not  far  from  the  Siberian 
border. 


184 


Japan  and  Manchuria 


185 


Q. — Did  Russia  take  Siberia  from 
China? 

A. — No.  Russia  did  not,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  take  Siberia  from  anybody. 
While  English  and  Spanish  sea-adven- 
turers were  fighting  for  the  golden  lands 
of  the  Spanish  Main  in  our  hemisphere  in 
Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  a  Cossack  adven- 
turer, named  Yermak,  led  a  little  band 
of  men  across  the  Urals  from  Russia, 
and  added  Siberia  to  the  Czar's  empire, 
practically  by  discovery.  There  was 
fighting  with  the  Tartar  tribes,  but  it  was 
very  desultory,  and  in  less  than  a  century 
the  Russian  sway  touched  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  In  1700  the  autocracy  began  to 
"utilize"  the  wonderful  new  territory  as  a 
convenient  place  for  imprisonment. 

Q. — Is  Port  Arthur  Russian,  Chi- 
nese or  Japanese? 

A. — It  is  Chinese — technically.  It  is  in 
Chinese  territory.  China  fortified  the  city 
in  1891.  Japan  took  it  in  the  China-Jap- 
anese War,  1894.  She  was  not  permitted 
by  the  Powers  to  keep  it.  In  1898  Russia 
moved  in  and  "acquired"  it  from  China 
on  a  lease.  In  1905,  during  the  Russo- 
Japanese  War,  Japan  took  it  from  Russia 
after  a  long  siege. 

Q. — How  could  Japan  take  Port 
Arthur  from  Russia  if  China 
owns  it? 

A. — By  the  treaty  of  peace  between 
Russia  and  Japan  (signed  in  Ports- 
mouth, New  Hampshire,  in  1905)  the 
Russian  Government  ceded  the  lease  of 
Port  Arthur  and  adjacent  territories  and 
waters  to  Japan.  In  1915  China  ex- 
tended the  lease,  making  it  run  99  years 
from  that  date.  Thus  Japan  is  secure  in 
her  possession  of  this  foothold  on  the 
Asiatic  continent  until  2014. 

Q. — Where  is  Korea? 

A. — Korea  is,  geographically,  a  part  of 
Manchuria,  being  a  southern  extension 
that  thrusts  an  enormous  peninsula  be- 
tween the  Sea  of  Japan  and  the  Yellow 
or  China  Sea,  and  almost  touches  the 
southernmost  islands  of  Japan  with  its 
extremity.  The  island  group  that  has  the 
famous  Japanese  port  of  Nagasaki  on  it 
is  just  across  the  Korean  Straits  from 
the  Korean  extremity. 

Q. — Is  Port  Arthur  near  Korea? 

A. — On  the  China  or  Yellow  Sea  side  of 
the  Korean  Peninsula  (toward  the  China 
mainland)  is  a  huge  gulf.  Protruding 


into  this  gulf,  between  Korea  and  the 
Chinese  province  Chili  (which  has 
Pekin  in  it)  is  a  big  peninsula  known  as 
the  Peninsula  of  Liaotung.  The  fortified 
city  of  Port  Arthur  is  at  its  extremity. 
From  the  west  coast  of  Korea  to  Port 
Arthur  is  191  miles. 

Q. — Is  Vladivostock  near  Port  Ar- 
thur? 

A. — No.  It  is  very  much  farther  north, 
and  the  two  places  are  separated  by  the 
Korean  Peninsula  and  a  whole  lot  of 
coast-line  on  both  sides  of  the  Peninsula. 
Vladivostock,  if  situated  on  our  coasts, 
would  occupy  about  the  geographical  po- 
sition of  Boston.  Port  Arthur  would  be 
enough  farther  south  to  be  about  where 
Philadelphia  is. 

To  steam  from  Port  Arthur  to  Vladi- 
vostock a  ship  must  go  down  the  Yellow 
Sea  southward,  then  turn  northeast 
through  the  Korean  Straits  between  Japan 
and  Korea,  and  then  steer  north  through 
the  Sea  of  Japan  to  Vladivostock. 

Q. — How    long    has    Russia    had 
Vladivostock  ? 

A. — More  than  half  a  century.  Vladi- 
vostock was  made  into  a  great  seaport 
and  rail  terminus  as  a  logical  part  of 
Russia's  expansion  through  Siberia.  It  is 
in  real  Siberian  territory,  not  in  Man- 
churia, though  the  Russian  Siberian  coast 
there  stretches  itself  along  the  sea  in  such 
a  way  that  Manchurian  territory  forms 
"hinter-land." 

Q. — Did  Japan  always  own  Korea? 

A. — Korea  was  an  independent  mon- 
archy, but  Japan  gradually  extended  her 
influence  there  and  in  1910,  by  treaty, 
Korea  was  annexed  to  the  island  empire. 
The  Korean  Government  appealed  to  the 
Powers  of  Europe  for  aid,  but  nothing 
was  done.  There  followed  a  good  deal 
of  rebellion,  or  rather  of  revolutionary 
agitation  by  young  Koreans,  many  of 
whom  had  been  educated  in  Europe  and 
America.  These  movements  were  sup- 
pressed in  the  usual  way,  and  for  a  long 
time  nothing  has  been  heard  of  Korea. 

Q. — How   many    islands    compose 
the  Japanese  group  ? 

A.— There  are  431  islands.  Alto- 
gether their  area  in  square  miles  is  a 
little  bigger  than  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois, 
Michigan  and  Wisconsin  combined.  They 
have  three  times  the  population,  however, 
having  56  million  people,  a  little  more 


i86 


Questions  atid  Answers 


than  half  the  total  population  of  the 
United  States  and  within  9  million  of  the 
whole  population  of  Germany. 

Q. — How  far  are  the  Philippines 
from  Japan? 

A. — The  northernmost  point  of  the 
Philippine  group  (island  of  Luzon)  is 
about  1,200  miles  south  from  the  Japanese 
port  of  Nagasaki  on  the  extreme  southern 
end  of  the  Japanese  group  proper. 
Japan,  however,  has  a  base  on  the  great 
island  of  Formosa,  which  lies  off  the 
South  China  coast.  Between  this  island 
and  the  Philippines  there  are  only  about 
250  miles  of  sea. 

Q. — Is  Manila  very  far  from  Yoko- 
hama? 

A. — Relatively  those  two  points  occupy 
about  the  same  geographical  positions  as 
do  Hampton  Roads,  the  American  naval 
base  in  Chesapeake  Bay,  and  the  southern 
West  Indies.  Yokohama  and  Tokio  (both 
lying  on  the  same  big  harbor)  would 
about  correspond  in  position  with  Norfolk 
and  Fortress  Monroe  (speaking  roughly). 
The  West  Indian  island  of  Martinique 
about  corresponds  in  position  with  that  of 
Manila.  The  Japanese  base  of  Formosa 
is  about  half  as  far  from  Manila  as  our 
Cuban  naval  base,  Guantanamo,  is  from 
Panama. 

Q. — Has  Japan  profited  greatly  by 
the  European  war? 

A. — She  has  profited  immensely.  Her 
war  expenses  were  very  slight  up  to  1918, 
and  her  trade  expansion  was  such  that  a 
British  expert  said  that  the  war  had  cre- 
ated two  especially  dangerous  claimants 
to  Great  Britain's  commercial  power — the 
United  States  and  Japan.  In  1914  Japan 
was  importing  more  than  she  exported, 
the  difference  against  her  being  about  16 
million  dollars.  In  1917  she  was  export- 
ing so  much  more  than  she  imported  that, 
instead  of  owing  the  outer  world  money, 
the  outer  world  owed  her  290  million  dol- 
lars. She  doubled  her  foreign  trade,  or 
almost  doubled  it,  during  the  first  three 
years  of  war. 

Q. — What  is  Japan  s  foreign  trade? 

A. — For  the  calendar  year  1917  the 
figures  are :  exports,  800  million  dollars ; 
imports,  500  millions.  In  1913  her  exports 
were  300  millions  and  her  imports  360 
million  dollars. 


Q. — What     does     Japan      import 
mostly  ? 

A. — Iron  and  raw  cotton  are  the  big 
imports.  Wool,  machinery  and  copper 
come  next  in  value. 


Q. — How  big  is  Japan's  merchant 
fleet? 

A. — Government  _  encouragement  _of 
shipbuilding  has  given  Japan  a  formid- 
able merchant  fleet  in  a  very  short  period 
of  time.  At  the  end  of  1916  there  were 
3,759  steamships  under  the  Japanese  flag, 
with  a  gross  tonnage  of  1,716,104.  The 
constructive  ability  of  the  country  had 
been  enhanced  to  such  a  degree  that  there 
were  224  private  shipyards,  and  61  pri- 
vate dry-docks  in  the  islands.  Vessels 
building  in  the  beginning  of  1917  were 
182,  all  more  than  700  gross  tons,  and 
totaling  about  638,000  tons. 


Q. — Do  Japanese  merchant   ships 
make  money? 

A. — They  have  been  making  amazing 
profits.  During  1916  one  line,  the  Oka- 
zaki  Steamship  Company,  paid  dividends 
at  the  rate  of  720  per  cent  on  the  mar- 
ket value  of  the  stock.  It  has  seven 
steamships  with  gross  tonnage  of  about 
18,000.  Its  capital  was  only  300,000  yen 
($150,000),  and  it  earned  1,900,000  yen  or 
$950,000.  The  Nippon  Yusen  Kaisha 
earned  $31,400,000.  The  Osaka  Mercan- 
tile Steamship  Company  earned  $20,000,- 
ooo.  The  dividends  paid  in  1916  by  vari- 
ous lines  (some  quite  small)  were  345  per 
cent,  387  per  cent,  200  per  cent  and  165 
per  cent.  All  told,  the  average  earnings 
of  the  Japanese  shipping  companies  are 
figured  as  having  been  close  to  85  per  cent, 
or  even  90  per  cent,  in  1916.  They  earned 
almost  a  dollar  on  every  gross  ton  in  the 
islands. 


Q. — Was   Japan   not   weak   finan- 
cially before  the  big  war? 

A. — She  was  slowly  recovering  from 
the  financial  exhaustion  of  the  Russo- 
Japanese  War,  and  she  was  considered 
not  a  very  strong  nation  financially.  But 
by  1918  she  had  thrived  so  from  the 
chance  that  the  big  war  gave  her  at  the 
world's  markets  that  she  was  able  to  lend 
money  to  the  Allies.  Up  to  about  April, 
1918,  she  had  loaned  nearly  650  million 
dollars. 


Japan  and  Manchuria 


187 


Q. — Why  did  Japan  enter  the  Eu- 
ropean war? 

A. — Japan  explained  her  entry  into  the 
war  by  declaring  that  her  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  made  it  incumbent  on  her 
to  do  so.  This  was  the  Anglo-Japanese 
Treaty  of  1902,  made  before  the  Russo- 
Japanese  War.  Its  direct  object,  accord- 
ing to  its  clauses,  was  the  maintenance 
of  the  situation  then  existent  in  Korea 
and  Manchuria.  It  stipulated  that  should 
either  of  the  parties  to  the  treaty  be- 
come involved  in  war  with  a  single  power, 
the  other  party  should  maintain  "benevo- 
lent neutrality."  If  attacked  by  two  pow- 
ers, the  other  was  bound  to  come  to  its 
aid. 

In  1905  the  treaty  was  extended  to  pro- 
tect British  interests  in  India  and  Af- 
ghanistan, while  Japan  got  a  free  hand  in 
Korea. 

Q. — What  were  the  famous  21  Jap- 
anese demands  on  China? 

A. — On  January  18,  1915,  Japan  sud- 
denly laid  before  China  a  series  of  de- 
mands relating  most  comprehensively  to 
Shan-tung  province,  the  Yangtse  valley, 
South  Manchuria  and  Eastern  Mongolia. 
The  demands  were  in  five  sections,  and 
the  most  serious  demands  were  in  sec- 
tion five,  which  the  Japanese  failed  to 
make  public  to  the  Allied  powers  or  the 
world.  In  fact,  there  were  denials  sent 
out  that  there  was  such  a  section,  but 
the  Chinese  Government  published  the 
fact.  After  long  negotiations  Japan  de- 
livered an  ultimatum,  in  May,  1915,  and 
China  accepted  the  four  sections,  leaving 
section  five  for  future  negotiations.  The 
agreement  transferred  to  Japan  all  the 
German  rights  in  Shan-tung  province,  and 
extended  the  lease  of  Port  Arthur  and 
the  South  Manchurian  railroad  for  99 
years.  There  was  another  clause  giving 
Japanese  "preference  in  South  Man- 
churia as  foreign  advisers,  instructors, 
political,  financial,  military  and  police." 

Q. — What  was  the  Japanese-Amer- 
ican Agreement? 

A. — On  November  2,  1917,  Viscount 
Ishii  for  Japan  and  Secretary  Lansing 
for  the  United  States  exchanged  notes 
clarifying  the  policy  of  the  United  States 
and  Japan  regarding  China.  The  impor- 
tant points  of  the  agreement  were :  "The 
Governments  of  fhe  United  States  and 
Japan  recognize  that  territorial  propin- 
quity creates  special  relations  between 
countries,  and  consequently  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  recognizes  that 


Japan  has  special  interests  in  China,  par- 
ticularly in  the  part  to  which  her  pos- 
sessions are  contiguous.  The  territorial 
sovereignty  of  China,  nevertheless,  re- 
mains unimpaired,  and  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  has  every  confidence  in 
the  repeated  assurances  of  the  Japanese 
Government  that,  while  geographical  po- 
sition gives  Japan  such  special  interests, 
they  have  no  desire  to  discriminate 
against  the  trade  of  other  nations.  .  .  . 
Moreover,  they  mutually  declare  that  they 
are  opposed  to  the  acquisition  by  any 
Government  of  any  special  rights  or  privi- 
leges that  would  affect  the  independence 
or  territorial  integrity  of  China,  or  that 
would  deny  to  the  subjects  or  citizens  of 
any  country  the  full  enjoyment  of  equal 
opportunities  in  the  commerce  and  indus- 
tries of  China."  The  Chinese  Govern- 
ment has  issued  a  statement  protesting 
and  refusing  to  be  bound  by  agreements 
concerning  it  entered  into  by  other 
Powers. 

Q. — What   active   part   did   Japan 
take  in  the  war? 

A. — In  November,  1914,  she  forced  the 
surrender  of  Kiaou-Chau,  the  province  in 
China  which  Germany  had  acquired  as  in- 
demnity for  the  Boxer  outrages,  and  from 
which  as  a  base  she  was  extending  a  rail- 
way system  into  China  in  furtherance  of 
German  commerce. 

Japan  was  Great  Britain's  ally  in  the 
East.  She  despatched  an  ultimatum  to 
Germany  August  15,  1914,  demanding  the 
departure  of  German  ships  from  Chinese 
waters  and  the  transfer  of  Kiaou-Chau 
to  Japan  as  first  step  to  its  return  to 
Chinese  control. 

The  time  limit  of  the  ultimatum  was 
August  23,  and  on  that  day  Japan  de- 
clared war  upon  Germany.  After  a  siege 
of  eight  weeks  Kiaou-Chau  was  surren- 
dered and  Germany's  rule  in  the  Far  East 
was  at  an  end. 

Q. — Did    Japan    agree    to    return 
Kiaou-Chau  to  China? 

A. — In  her  ultimatum  to  Germany,  Aug- 
ust 16,  1914,  Japan  demanded  of  Germany 
that  she  deliver  over  her  territory  of 
Kiaou-Chau.  The  second  clause  in  this 
ultimatum  read : 

"Second — To  deliver  on  a  date  not  later 
than  September  15  (1914),  to  the  Im- 
perial Japanese  authorities,  without  con- 
dition or  compensation,  the  entire  leased 
territory  of  Kiaou-Chau,  with  a  view  to 
the  eventual  restoration  of  the  same  to 
China." 


i88 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Did  Japanese  participate  in  the 
destruction  of  Admiral  von 
Spec's  fleet? 

A. — No.  There  were  no  Japanese  ves- 
sels on  the  scene  at  all.  They  did  help 
in  a  way,  however,  for  they  helped  the 
Australia  and  other  British  ships  chase 
von  Spec  out  of  the  Pacific,  around  the 
Horn,  to  his  fate  off  the  Falklands. 

Q. — Did  Japan  have  a  secret  treaty 
with  the  Czar? 

A. — Japan  had  a  secret  treaty  with  the 
Czar's  Government.  It  was  signed  in 
June,  1916,  between  Sazonoff,  then  Rus- 
sian Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Vis- 
count Motono,  Japanese  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs. 

The  treaty  provided  that  if  any  other 
nation  made  war  against  either  Russia  or 
Japan  over  the  Chinese  question,  the  par- 
ties to  the  treaty  should  be  allies  in  the 
war. 

The  Trotzky-Lenine  Government  found 
the  treaty  in  the  Russian  secret  files  and 
immediately  made  it  public. 

Q. — How  big  is  Japan's  navy? 

A. — Japan  stands  fifth  among  naval 
powers,  with  Great  Britain,  the  United 
States,  Germany  and  France  leading  her. 
In  1917  she  had  10  dreadnaughts  built  and 
completing,  26  pre-dreadnaughts  and  ar- 
mored cruisers,  25  protected  cruisers, 
scouts,  etc.,  77  destroyers,  26  torpedo 
boats,  and  16  submarines. 

Q. — How  big  is  Japan's  army? 

A. — Japan  has  universal  obligatory 
military  service,  her  population  being  di- 
vided into  various  "bans,"  or  reserve  lines, 
much  on  the  German  model.  The  "peace- 
strength"  (which  apparently  means  the 
standing  army  and  the  men  serving  their 
military  course  at  the  time)  is  given  as 
about  a  quarter  of  a  million  men.  The 
war  strength  is  about  30,000  men  in  the 
regular  army,  200,000  in  the  reserves,  one 
million  as  reinforcements,  and  a  large 
force  of  territorial  army  material  whose 
size  is  not  stated. 

Q. — Can  Japan  support  her  own 
population  agriculturally? 

A. — Japanese  experts  hold  that  if  the 
people  would  cultivate  land  at  present  un- 
used which  is  inclined  at  an  angle  of  less 
than  15  degrees  (terracing  and  otherwise 
improving  these  hill-sides  like  the  Chi- 
nese) the  area  of  arable  land  in  Japan 
might  be  doubled.  It  is  estimated  that  in 


Hokkaido,  the  northernmost  island  of  the 
archipelago,  there  is  enough  uncultivated 
land  to  take  care  of  the  surplus  Japanese 
population  for  many  years  to  come.  As 
the  people  farm  now,  they  are  crowded  so 
densely  in  limited  areas  that,  though  the 
population  of  Japan  actually  is  less  dense 
than  that  of  England  or  Belgium,  the  pop- 
ulation per  square  mile  occupied  is  given 
approximately  as  follows :  England  466, 
Belgium  702,  Japan  2,688.  This  would 
give  the  Japanese  at  present  less  than  a 
quarter-acre  of  land  for  each  person. 

Q. — Is  the  cost  of  living  notably 
low  in  Japan? 

A. — The  actual  cost  of  living  is  not  so 
low  as  might  be  thought,  but  the  Jap- 
anese workman  does  without  the  comforts 
and  pleasures  enjoyed  by  his  fellow  work- 
man in  other  lands.  Not  only  is  thrift 
required,  but  great  self-denial,  to  make 
ends  meet  in  the  Mikado's  kingdom.  The 
price  of  rice  is  practically  the  same  in 
Japan  as  it  is  in  America.  Sugar  and 
salt  cost  practically  the  same  in  Japan  as 
in  England.  Tea  is  cheaper,  but  fuel  is 
much  dearer.  Meat  is  more  expensive  in 
Japan,  but  fish  is  cheaper.  Beef  sells  in 
Japan  at  25  cents  per  pound,  horse  meat 
at  13  cents,  and  pork  at  14  cents.  These 
are  for  the  cheapest  cuts.  Butter,  cheese, 
milk  and  cream  are  about  as  expensive  in 
Japan  as  they  are  in  England.  Eggs  are 
cheaper  there ;  the  best  grades  selling  the 
year  round  at  18  cents  a  dozen,  but  the 
eggs  of  Japan  are  small  and  of  inferior 
quality.  Rent  is  cheaper,  but  the  houses 
are  of  very  light  construction,  and  give 
no  protection  from  the  cold  of  winter. 
Clothing  in  the  European  style  costs 
about  the  same  in  Japan  as  in  England. 
Japanese  clothing  is  actually  more  ex- 
pensive than  European,  and  many  Jap- 
anese adop.t  the  foreign  style  of  dress  out 
of  motives  of  economy.  But,  of  course, 
the  poor  Japanese  spend  much  less  on 
dress  than  we  do ;  in  fact,  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  year  the  climate  is 
such  that  the  lower  classes  seldom  wear 
much  more  than  the  compulsory  loin 
cloth. 

Q. — Please  give  some  idea  of  the 
wages  paid  in  Japan. 

A. — Official  reports  in  1913  gave  the 
following  daily  wages :  Silk  spinners,  30 
sen  (15  cents)  ;  weavers,  21  cents;  dyers, 
25  cents ;  tailors,  29  cents ;  shoemakers, 
37  cents ;  carpenters,  44  cents ;  plasterers, 
46  cents ;  stone-cutters,  50  cents ;  print- 
ers, 27  cents. 

These  wages  were  not  for  an  8-hour 
day,  but  for  from  10  to  16  hours. 


Japan  and  Manchuria 


189 


Q. — Is  there  a  Socialist  movement 
in  Japan? 

A. — Yes.  It  is,  however,  strongly  re- 
pressed by  the  Government.  In  1911 
twelve  leaders  of  a  very  radical  socialist 
movement  were  charged  with  plotting  the 
assassination  of  the  Mikado.  They  were 
executed  January  25,  1911,  and  from  that 
time  the  Government  has  strictly  pro- 
hibited the  Socialist  movement.  In  spite 
of  this,  it  is  said  that  the  teaching  is 
spreading  among  the  common  people. 


Q. — Who  were  the  Samurai? 

A. — They  were  the  military  class  of  old 
Japan — largely  retainers  supported  by 
feudal  chiefs.  Socially  they  stood  next 
below  the  throne  and  the  nobles.  Below 
.them  (very  far  below)  came  the  com- 
mon people.  They  were  fierce,  giving 
their  enemies  no  quarter.  But  they  had 
a  decidedly  high  code-  of  honor  of  their 
own. 


COST  OF  WAR  (AMERICA) 


Q. — What  does  the  whole  war  cost 
the  world  every  minute? 

A. — Counting  the  United  States  expend- 
itures in,  it  was  estimated  early  in  1918 
(on  the  basis  of  the  most  conservative 
and  exact  figures  available)  that  the 
money  cost  alone  was  $80,000  a  minute. 
A  United  States  Government  estimate  of 
the  daily  expenditures  of  all  the  belliger- 
ents would  make  the  sum  per  minute  $81,- 
249.  This  estimate  (published  March  i, 
1918)  was  that  the  rate  of  daily  expendi- 
ture then  was  $116,700,000. 

Q. — How  does  the  whole  war-cost 
compare  with  world-wealth? 

A. — AH  the  wheat  lands  of  the  globe, 
producing  at  maximum  capacity  (say 
2,500,000,060  bushels  at  $2  a  bushel),  could 
not  pay  the  cost  in  less  than  a  quarter- 
century.  All  the  gold  mined  in  the  last 
65  years  (from  1850  to  1916)  could  not 
pay  more  than  1/7  of  the  cost  of  the  first 
three  years  of  war.  All  the  revenues  for 
a  year  of  all  the  nations  in  the  world,  if 
they  were  all  put  together,  would  pay  only 
15  per  cent  of  the  mere  money  cost  from 
August,  1914,  to  April,  1918.  The  money 
that  one  year  of  war  costs  would  almost 
pay  all  the  national  debts  of  every  coun- 
try in  the  entire  world,  from  the  United 
States  to  Siam. 

Q. — What  does  the  war  cost  Amer- 
ica alone  monthly  ? 

A. — In  round  figures,  one  billion  dollars 
a  month  (in  February,  1918). 

The  exact  figures  were :  November, 
1917,  $982,000,000;  December,  1917,  $1,105,- 
000,000;  January,  1918,  $1,090,000,000; 
February,  1918,  $1,002,878,608;  of  which 
$665,400,000  was  for  war  expenses,  and 
$325,000,000  was  for  loans  to  the  Allies. 

Q. — How  does  our  war-bill  compare 
with  normal  expenditures? 

A. — Frank  A.  Vanderlip,  of  the  Na- 
tional City  Bank,  New  York,  says  that, 
whereas  the  total  expenditures  of  the 
United  States  Treasury  since  its  first  or- 
ganization under  Alexander  Hamilton 
down  through  the  War  of  1812,  the  Civil 
War,  and  the  Spanish  War  (including 
expenses  of  these  wars,  and  for  every 
other  purpose  whatsoever  connected  with 


the  government),  have  amounted  to  a  lit- 
tle more  than  $26,000,000,000,  we  are 
now  undertaking  to  spend  in  a  single  year 
no  less  than  $21,000,000,000  (for  all  pur- 
poses, including  war). 

Q. — Are   not   interest   charges    on 
war-debts  enormous? 

A. — The  United  States,  at  the  end  of 
one  year  only,  had  obligated  itself  to  pay 
$225,000,000  annually  as  interest  on  loans. 
(Much  of  this  would  be  offset  by  interest 
received  on  money  advanced  to  the  Allies.) 
Great  Britain's  interest  charges  at  the  end 
of  four  years  exceeded  one  billion  dollars 
annually — a  sum  larger  than  its  normal 
peace  expenditures. 

Q. — To  what  extent  are  we  lend- 
ing money  to  the  Allies? 

A. — Soon  after  our  entrance  into  the 
war,  Congress  authorized  loans  to  na- 
tions "at  war  with  enemies  of  the  United 
States."  By  the  end  of  1917,  $7,000,000,- 
ooo  had  been  authorized,  and  more  than 
$4,000,000,000  had  been  advanced.  Of 
this,  Great  Britain  had  received  nearly 
half,  France  one-fourth,  and  the  rest  had 
gone  to  Italy,  Russia,  Belgium,  and  Ser- 
bia. These  loans  took  the  form  of  cred- 
its for  the  purchase  of  supplies,  the 
United  States  Government  accepting  in 
return  securities  issued  by  the  foreign 
governments. 

Q. — Is  there  so  much  money  in  the 
world  ? 

A. — There  is  not  nearly  enough  actual 
cash  in  the  world  to  even  begin  to  pay 
the  running  expenditures  of  the  world  for 
war.  If  all  the  belligerents  were  con- 
fronted suddenly  with  the  inexorable  ne- 
cessity of  paying  instantly,  in  actual  cash, 
for  everything  as  they  get  it  or  use  it, 
they  would  simply  have  to  stop  right  then 
and  there.  It  would  be  physically  im- 
possible to  find  the  cash. 

For  instance,  the  money  in  the  whole 
United  States  on  March  i,  1918,  was 
$6,351,584,056.  That  is,  if  the  govern- 
ment could  have  gotten  every  cent  that 
every  individual  owned,  if  it  could  have 
scraped  every  bank  and  every  business 
clean,  it  could  not  have  raised  even 
enough  cash  to  pay  out  the  $7,000,000.000 
loans  to  the  Allies  authorized  by  Con- 
gress. 


190 


Cost  of  War  (America) 


191 


Q. — How  can  the  war  continue  if 
cash  is  lacking? 

A. — Even  in  peace  there  is  never 
enough  cash  in  the  world  actually  to  pay . 
"on  the  nail"  for  the  business  that  is  done 
by  the  world.  The  big  fact  is  that  cash 
(currency)  is  only  a  token.  Even  gold 
is  valuable  only  because  the  world 
chooses  to  call  it  so.  Credit  is  the  real 
world-medium.  The  world  pays  itself 
with  paper  that  has  credit  (trust)  behind 
it.  All  the  national  paper  currency  of 
the  world  is  essentially  not  different  from 
the  notes,  bills  of  lading,  invoices,  and 
other  paper,  which  form  the  bulk  of  the 
world's  commercial  structure.  Even  coins 
are  valuable  mostly  because  of  the  credit 
of  the  government  that  issues  them.  In- 
trinsically they  may  not  be  worth  much. 
You  might,  for  instance,  have  to  hawk^an 
American  copper  cent  pretty  far  and  wide 
if  you  were  forced  to  use  it  simply  on  its 
value  as  copper,  though  the  copper  is 
there,  sure  enough.  We  have  seen  what 
has  happened  to  the  Russian  rouble,  and 
the  German  mark.  Yet,  technically,  these 
values  are  supposed  to  be  backed  by  actual 
coin. 

Q. — Just  what  do  the  billion-figures 
mean? 

A. — "Billions"  really  are  so  big  that 
even  the  financial  expert  does  not  get  a 
sharp  image  in  his  mind.  We  can  all 
understand  hundreds,  thousands,  and  even 
millions ;  but  "billions"  mean  only  dead 
mathematical  figures  to  most  of  us. 

We  can  give  you  a  sort  of  picture,  how- 
ever— of  the  significance  of  our  war- 
loans,  for  instance.  Let  us  take  the  ex- 
act figures,  which  were  (on  January  26, 
1918)  4  billions,  247  millions,  and  400 
thousand  dollars.  That  sum  (handled 
within  a  few  months,  indeed,  almost  in 
a  few  weeks)  was  il/2  times  the  size  of 
our  whole  national  debt  at  the  end  of  the 
Civil  War. 

Q. — Can  the  huge  war-loans  pos- 
sibly be  re-paid? 

A. — That  is  a  question  that  the  world's 
greatest  financiers  have  not  been  able  to 
answer.  If  the  debts  to  us  stood  alone, 
they  would  not  be  so  very  enormous  as 
compared  with  the  possible  resources  of 
the  Allied  nations.  But,  in  view  of  the 
enormous  wastage  of  the  war,  it  is  quite 
impossible  to  calculate  how  normal  reve- 
nues may  be  restored,  and  how  enough 
additional  revenues  may  be  raised  to  pay 
the  huge  accumulations  of  abnormal  debt. 


Q. — How  did  we  pay  our  Civil  War 
debt? 

A. — Although  the  national  debt  at  the 
end  of  the  Civil  War  was  not  altogether 
three  billions  of  dollars,  it  was  a  sum 
which  simply  appalled  men  in  that  gen- 
eration, for  the  world  was  absolutely  pa- 
rochial in  finances  as  compared  with  to- 
day. The  whole  world  stared  aghast  at 
the  debt.  Many  perfectly  honorable  and 
talented  men  saw  no  possible  way  out  of 
it  except  by  repudiation. 

But  the  war  had  hardly  closed,  wlien 
an  entire  new  world  of  wealth  was  torn 
open  almost  over  night.  The  armies  that 
had  been  fighting  turned  to  a  new  and 
wonderful  fight.  They  fought  to  open  the 
great  West.  They  burst  into  the  plains. 
They  built  the  Union  Pacific  transcon- 
tinental railroad.  It  was  as  if  a  new  and 
bountiful  continent  suddenly  had  been 
added  to  the  earth.  By  1893,  the  great 
debt  had  dwindled  down  to  $893,000,000. 
Forty-two  years  after  the  war  (1907),  the 
last  penny  had  been  paid,  and  it  had 
been  paid  by  new  and  ever-increasing 
wealth  that  sprang  from  the  new  territory, 
so  that  individual  citizens  hardly  even 
knew  that  there  was  a  national  debt. 

Q. — Is    any    hidden    world-wealth 
left  to  pay  for  this  war? 

A. — There  is  a  huge  amount  that  is  ab- 
solutely untouched  or  has  been  only  par- 
tially exploited.  Even  in  old  Europe, 
crowded  and  intensively  exploited  though 
it  seems,  there  is  a  great  deal.  It  may  be 
that  Germany,  France,  Belgium,  Holland, 
Switzerland,  and  the  United  Kingdom 
have  exploited  their  natural  wealth  pretty 
closely;  but  the  other  countries  of  Eu- 
rope, each  and  every  one,  still  conceal 
treasures  that  require  only  concerted  and 
earnest  effort  to  produce  very  great 
values. 

Q. — What  are  some  of  the  hidden 
resources  of  Europe? 

A. — Spain's  mines  and  agricultural  re- 
sources, especially  herds,  with  the  result- 
ing leather  and  food  products ;  Italy's 
Campagna,  which,  by  sanitation  (to  elim- 
inate pernicious  malaria),  can  be  made  to 
produce  at  least  doubly;  Russia's  oil- 
fields, which  alone  should  produce  enough 
under  modern  scientific  development  to 
replace  a  vast  part  of  the  world's  coal ; 
the  wheat-fields  of  Russian  Ukraine,  often 
said  to  be  the  richest  black  earth  in  the 
known  world;  Serbia's  wheat-fields  and 
copper  mines ;  Roumania's  oil-wells ;  the 
forests  of  Norway  and  Sweden,  and, 


192 


Questions  and  Answers 


greater  still,  the  wonderful  and  practic- 
ally unused  water-powers  of  Norway, 
whjch  alone  could  do  the  work  now  done 
for  the  world  by  extravagant  use  of  mil- 
lions of  tons  of  coal. 

Q. — Is  there  unused  world-terri- 
tory comparable  to  our  West  in 
1865? 

A. — Yes.  Siberia  is  a  bigger  territory 
than  the  whole  United  States,  and  it 
should  prove  to  be  even  richer  in  both 
agricultural  and  mining  possibilities  than 
was  the  West  of  1865.  Siberia  alone 
might  well  pay  the  debts  of  all  the  world. 
You  must  get  out  of  your  mind  the  old 
idea  of  Siberia  as  a  forbidding  country. 
You  must  think  of  it  as  you  think  of  the 
United  States — a  country  that  has  bleak 
Alaska  and  semi-tropical  Florida  within 
it.  Siberia  has  territory  that  remains 
frozen  the  year  around.  It  also  has  terri- 
tories so  mild  that  tropical  beasts  like  the 
tiger  dwell  in  it.  If  the  European  world 
were  working  in  unison,  to  build  rail- 
roads on  a  colossal  scale  into  Siberia  and 
across  Russia,  the  wealth  that  might  be 
expected  to  flow  back  would  very  prob- 
ably pay  the  whole  war  wastage  within 
two  generations,  and  almost  without  bur- 
den on  European  people. 

Q. — How  does  Siberia  compare 
with  the  United  States? 

A. — In  area  Siberia  has  4,800,000  (odd) 
square  miles  as  against  2,974,000  square 
miles  of  the  United  States.  The  Siberian 
population  is  so  small  that  it  amounts  to 
only  2  inhabitants  to  the  square  mile 
against  31  inhabitants  to  the  square  mile 
in  our  country.  Siberia  has  only  15  im- 
portant cities  against  more  than  125  very 
thriving  and  important  American  cities. 
All  the  railroads  in  Siberia  have  only 
8,000  miles  of  track  against  more  than 
255,000  miles  in  the  United  States. 

Q.— Would  the  Berlin-Bagdad 
Railroad  do  much  toward  new 
wealth? 

A. — Yes.  It  would  tap  the  ancient 
scene  of  the  only  truly  scientific  agricul- 
ture that  the  earth  once  knew.  In  Asia 
Minor  the  civilizations  of  Assyria  and  the 
Semites  had  irrigation  works  on  a  scale 
that  would  be  considered  majestic  even 
to-day.  They  extracted  from  that  great 
Asiatic  peninsula  almost  everything  that 
they  actually  needed — lumber,  grains, 
meats,  textile  materials.  They,  or  rather 
their  degenerated  successors,  over-ex- 
ploited the  territory.  They  cut  down  the 


forests,  for  one  thing;  and  that  one  thing 
alone  meant  the  doom  of  the  area,  for 
when  the  forests  (the  earth's  storage 
plants  for  rainfall)  were  destroyed,  the 
rainfalls  made  floods  that  tore  the  soil 
from  mountain-sides  and  valleys  and  left 
them  bare ;  and  when  there  was  no  rain- 
fall, there  was  no  stored  water  to  con- 
tinue to  feed  the  parched  land.  The  irri- 
gation works  became  useless,  and  were 
abandoned.  The  inhabitants  became 
wretched.  All  these  things  can  be  re- 
stored now. 

Q. — What  is  the  size  of  the  Asia 
Minor  territory? 

A. — Asia  Minor  has  200,000  square 
miles — an  area  that  compares  closely  with 
that  of  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Penn- 
sylvania put  together  (245,500  square 
miles).  The  Asia  Minor  territory  con- 
tains 17  million  acres  under  some  sort  of 
cultivation.  Of  minerals  it  contains 
chrome  (valuable  for  steel  making),  as- 
phalt, coal,  lignite,  petroleum,  salt,  iron, 
salt,  emery  and  meerschaum.  The  iron 
mines  (worked  by  very  primitive  meth- 
ods) produce  40,000  tons  a  year  even 
now. 

Q. — Are  there  other  areas  to  be 
exploited? 

A. — China,  exploited  in  a  large  and 
noble  sense,  could  be  made  to  enrich  its 
own  teeming  multitudes  and  still  to  send 
forth  prodigal  riches  to  the  rest  of  us. 
The  same  is  true  of  Africa.  But  such 
exploitation,  if  it  is  to  make  the  world 
really  richer,  must  not  be  individual  ex- 
ploitation by  any  one  nation  or  group  of 
nations.  Here  we  see  the  great  new 
spiritual,  as  well  as  material,  value  of  the 
American  idea  of  the  "open  door."  It 
must  be  made  a  door  that  is  open  to  fine 
and  magnanimous  world-effort,  not  to  rob- 
bers. 

Q. — What  does  America's  war 
share  cost  an  American  citizen 
per  day? 

A. — At  one  billion  dollars  a  month,  and 
figuring  the  population  of  the  United 
States  as  approximately  100  million  peo- 
ple, one  year  of  war  would  cost  each 
American  $120  a  year,  or  32%  cents  a 
day. 

Q. — What  does  every  minute  of 
war  cost  us  Americans  alone? 

A. — At  the  rate  of  twelve  billion  dollars 
a  year,  every  minute  costs  us  $22,831. 
Take  out  your  watch  and  look  at  the  sec- 


Cost  of  War  (America) 


193 


ond-hand.  Every  time  it  moves,  the  coun- 
try will  have  spent  $380.50  for  the  war. 
Every  hour  more  than  a  million  dollars 
has  been  spent  ($1,369,863  to  be  exact). 
Every  day  costs  more  than  32  millions 
($32,876,712  exactly). 

Q. — Does  the  United  States  possess 
nearly  all  the  gold  coin  in  the 
world  ? 

A. — No.  Not  nearly;  but  the  United 
States  possesses  twice  as  much  gold  as 
the  country  with  the  next  largest  store. 
Extraordinary  purchases  by  the  Allied 
nations  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war 
have  poured  gold  into  the  United  States. 
From  August,  1914,  to  the  middle  of  1917, 
the  United  States  received  $1,000,000,000 
more  gold  than  she  exported.  Early  in 
1918  the  total  stock  of  gold  in  the  coun- 
try was  more  than  $2,500,000,000.  It  is 
held  largely  in  the  vaults  of  the  Federal 
reserve  banks,  the  Government,  and  the 
commercial  banks,  where  it  makes  pos- 
sible the  credit  structure  which  maintains 
industry  in  the  United  States. 

Q. — What  is  repudiation? 

A. — Repudiation  is  a  refusal  to  pay  a 
debt  or  obligation.  National  repudiation 
really  does  not  differ  in  essence  from  in- 
dividual repudiation.  But  while  the  in- 
dividual can  be  haled  to  court  and  be 
forced  to  defend  his  case  before  a  su- 
perior power  (the  governmental  power 
of  his  country)  a  nation  cannot  be  taken 
to  court  because  as  yet  there  is  no  obliga- 
tory international  court.  In  international 
observance  each  nation  is  absolutely  the 
equal  of  every  other.  Therefore,  if  it 
chooses  to  repudiate  a  debt,  the  other  na- 
tions have  no  recourse  except  to  slow 
and  complex  diplomacy  or  to  violence. 

Q. — Do  nations  ever  repudiate  their 
debts? 

A. — Much  of  the  world's  trouble  has 
come  from  repudiation  in  one  form  or 
another,  especially  by  weak  nations — the 
so-called  backward  nations.  But  great 
nations  also  have  repudiated  their  debts, 
or  certain  debts.  Certain  of  the  war-debts 
of  European  nations  really  have  never 
been  paid.  They  were  not  necessarily  re- 
pudiated outright,  but  by  a  successive  se- 
ries of  taxations  and  other  revenue  laws 
they  were  wiped  out. 

Q. — How  might  the  present  war- 
debts  be  repudiated? 

A. — They  might  be  repudiated  outright, 
but  that  is  highly  unlikely — almost  im- 


possible, indeed,  considering  the  internal 
politics  and  the  external  complications, 
not  to  mention  that  delicate  point  "na- 
tional honor." 

There  are,  however,  many  ways  in 
which  they  can  be  wiped  put  legally,  in  a 
way  that  would  be  repudiation  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  and  still  not  bear  the 
onus  of  the  name.  Thus,  income  and 
other  taxes  could  be  laid  to  affect  the 
classes  that  naturally  are  the  holders  of 
war-bonds.  These  imposts  could  be  made 
so  heavy  that  they  would  not  only  equal 
the  interest  that  governments  have  to  pay 
on  the  bonds,  but  they  could  be  made  so 
great  as  gradually  to  pay  off  the  war- 
bonds  themselves — a  case  of  making  the 
creditor  actually  pay  out  of  his  pocket 
what  the  other  fellow  owes  him. 

Another  form  of  repudiation  would  be 
to  issue  a  new  loan  with  a  very  big  rate 
of  interest.  It  would  not  need  to  be  a 
large  loan.  The  mere  fact  of  such  a  bond 
being  available  would  automatically  and 
irresistibly  depress  the  existing  war- 
bonds.  As  soon  as  these  sank  to  a  suf- 
ficiently low  price,  the  government  might 
buy  up  part  or  all  of  them,  and  thus  do 
like  a  debtor  who  induces  his  creditors 
to  take  fifty  cents  (more  or  less)  on  the 
dollar. 


Q. — Have  the  big  governments  ever 
thus  repudiated  their  debts? 

A. — Yes.  One  of  the  very  great  gov- 
ernments of  the  world  (it  would  not  be 
fair  to  name  it,  without  explaining  at 
great  length  the  very  intricate  financial 
considerations  that  are  involved)  has  not 
paid  its  great  war  debts  incurred  during 
the  Napoleonic  wars.  By  successive  dimi- 
nutions of  interest  and  increases  of  taxes 
it  has  happened,  slowly  but  inevitably,  that 
the  security  representing  this  national  debt 
fell  during  the  past  century  from  above 
par  (100)  to  a  little  over  half  of  par 
(52).  Even  before  the  great  war  the 
government  could  at  any  time  have  bought 
up  its  own  debt  at  sums  as  low  as  65 
cents  on  the  dollar.  Most  of  this  debt 
was  held  by  its  own  people  and,  there- 
fore, did  not  greatly  affect  other  na- 
tions. 

Since  the  great  war  began,  this  security 
has  fallen  to  the  still  lower  figure  just 
mentioned.  Thus,  quite  automatically, 
and  without  spending  a  penny  (on  the 
contrary,  actually  by  making  money 
through  decreased  interest  payments  and 
increased  tax  collection),  this  particular 
government  has  practically  eliminated  al- 
most one-half  of  that  particular  war- 
debt. 


194 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Has  the  United  States  ever  de- 
faulted on  its  obligations? 

A. — Never.  Some  of  the  states  re- 
pudiated bonds  and  other  obligations,  but 
even  these  cases  were  based  on  a  plea  of 
justification.  Some  states  repudiated 
bond  issues  by  negro  and  "carpet-bag" 
legislatures  during  reconstruction  after 
the  Civil  War.  There  has  been  much 
conflict  of  opinion  about  the  justice  of 
this  attitude,  and  the  general  belief  ap- 
pears to  be  that,  whether  the  pleas  in  ex- 
tenuation are  sound  or  not,  it  would  have 
been  far  better  for  the  credit  of  the  whole 
country  had  the  obligations  been  honored, 
even  though  they  were  fraudulently  laid. 
However,  these  were  purely  local  debts. 
The  Federal  Government  has  so  well  met 
all  its  obligations  that  a  United  States 
bond  is  one  of  the  best  securities  any- 
where in  the  world. 

Q. — Could  the  war-debts  be  wiped 
out  without  new  sources  of 
wealth  ? 

A. — Yes,  they  might  be,  though  no  one 
is  daring  enough  to  prophesy  that  they 
actually  can  be.  At  best,  such  a  settle- 
ment would  have  to  be  adjusted  over  a 
long  period  of  years.  If  a  nation  could 
survive  economically  with  war  taxes  con- 
tinued after  peace  has  come,  the  debt 
might  possibly  be  wiped  out  in  a  single 
generation.  Great  Britain,  at  the  end  of 
its  third  fiscal  year,  had  produced  one  dol- 
lar in  war  taxes  for  every  seven  dollars 
of  war  expenditure.  Some  lucrative 
forms  of  war  taxation  would  end  with 
the  war,  and  substitutes  would  have  to  be 
found.  ' 

Q. — What  does  the  war  cost  the 
European  nations? 

A. — At  the  end  of  the  first  three  years 
of  war  (August,  1917),  excluding  the 
United  States,  which  had  only  just  begun, 
to  spend  money,  and  counting  only  the 
actual  cash  spent  by  the  European  bel- 
ligerents and  not  the  war  damages  (which 
are  literally  incalculable),  the  total  was 
estimated  officially  in  Washington  as  a 
little  more  than  88  billions  of  dollars, 
with  the  cost  per  month  increasing  stead 
ily.  The  detailed  official  figures  were: 

United   Kingdom    $26,705,000,000 

France    16,530,000,000 

Russia 14,250,000,000 

Italy    5,050,000,000 

Other   Allies    3,250,000,000 


Less     advances     of     one 
power  to  another  7,992,500,000 


Net  total  for  Allies $57,792,500,000 


Germany   19,750,000,000 

Austria-Hungary    9,700,000,000 

Bulgaria  and  Turkey   1,450,000,000 


Total    $30,900,000,000 

Less  advances   600,000,000 


Net  total   for  enemy    . .  $30,300,000,000 


Total    $65,785,000,000 


Grand   total    $88,092,500,000 

Q. — What  were  the  total  war  bor- 
rowings of  the  European  bel- 
ligerents ? 

A. — There  has  been  some  wonderfully 
complex  financing  and  this,  together  with 
statements  made  purposely  intricate  (to 
mislead  the  enemy),  has  perplexed  even 
astute  financial  experts.  The  U.  S.  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Information  announced 
early  in  1918: 

"As  long  ago  as  in  April,  1916,  the  ap- 
proximate amounts  of  the  loans  con- 
tracted for  war  purposes  by  the  different 
belligerent  powers  were  stated  to  be  $19,- 
881,731,110  for  the  Allies  (of  which  sum 
$7,903,145,000  was  for  Great  Britain  and 
$6,500,053,000  for  France),  and  $9,206,- 
750,000  for  the  enemy  powers  ($6,415,- 
250,000  for  Germany).  This  was  a  grand 
total  of  $29,088,481,110  for  all  war  loans. 

Many  new  ones  have,  of  course,  been 
made  since  the  date  mentioned. 

Q. — How  do  American  war-loan 
subscriptions  compare  with 
the  British? 

A.— After  two  and  a  half  years  of  war, 
Britain  floated  a  loan  of  $5,000,000,000, 
with  5,289,000  subscribers.  In  its  second 
loan  (limited  to  $4,500,000,000),  the 
United  States  (with  twice  Britain's  popu- 
lation) received  applications  for  $4,617,- 
532,000  from  9,500,000  subscribers. 

Q. — How  much  does  the  United 
States  take  from  individual  in- 
comes? 

A. — The  old  income  tax  levied  on  in- 
comes over  $3,000.  The  war  measure  of 
1917  levies  on  incomes  of  $1,000  (single), 
$2,000  (married).  Additional  graduated 
taxes  lie  on  incomes  exceeding  $5,000. 
This  taxes  incomes  between  $5,000  and 
$7,500  I  per  cent  in  addition  to  old  tax; 


Cost  of  War  (America) 


195 


$7,500  and  $10,000,  2  per  cent;  $10,000  and 
$12,000,  3  per  cent;  $12,500  and  $15,000, 
4  per  cent;  over  $500,000,  from  50  per 
cent  up  to  63  per  eent. 

Q. — What  is  the  purpose  of  War 
Savings  Stamps  and  Certifi- 
cates ? 

A. — To  encourage  thrift  and  to  enable 
persons  with  meager  incomes  to  lend  even 
small  sums  to  the  Government.  Stamps 
affixed  to  a  certificate  are  redeemable 
in  five  years  at  $5  each.  They  cost  from 
$4.12  in  January,  1918,  with  an  increase 
of  i  cent  for  each  succeeding  month. 
Thrift  Stamps  were  also  issued,  costing 
25  cents  each,  bearing  no  interest,  but 
exchangeable  for  War  Savings  Stamps, 
which  do  bear  interest  as  shown. 

Q. — What  were  our  cash  assets  in. 
February,  1918? 

A. — The  total  cash  assets  of  the  Gov- 
ernment were  $4,027,919,548,  which  in- 
cluded $2,401,135,506  gold,  $491,673,559 
silver,  and  the  balance  of  the  general 
fund. 

Q. — How  has  the  United  States 
sought  to  finance  its  war  ac- 
tivities ? 

A. — By  increasing  national  income 
(taxation),  and  by  borrowing  money  (do- 
mestic loans). 

Q. — What  were  the  principal  war- 
taxes  in  the  revenue  measure 
of  1917? 

A. — The  revenue  bill  of  October  13, 
1917,  carried  a  so-called  "excess  profits" 
tax,  while  income  taxes  and  postal  rates 
were  increased,  and  additional  imposts 
were  placed  on  liquor  and  tobacco. 
There  were  also  war-taxes  on  theater 
and  railway  tickets,  club  dues,  and  va- 
rious minor  imposts. 

Q. — How  much  income  can  we  fig- 
ure on? 

A. — The  Treasury  Department  figured 
that  in  the  fiscal  year  (July  i,  1917,  to 
July,  1918)  the  receipts  from  our  internal 
taxes  would  be  $3,400,000,000. 

Customs  and  miscellaneous  revenue 
had  swelled  the  ordinary  receipts  early  in 
1918  to  $768,677,000,  and  receipts  from  lib- 
erty loans,  certificates,  war  savings  and 
other  public  debt  sources  had  been  $9,811,- 
668,000,  making  the  government's  total 


receipts  in  the  first  8  months  of  war  $10,- 
583,684,000.  The  war-savings  movement 
brought  $75,000,000  in  three  months. 

Q. — How  many  bonds  did  the 
United  States  issue  during  its 
first  year  of  war? 

A. — Two  "Liberty  Loans"  were  issued 
to  the  public  in  1917,  and  a  third  was 
opened  for  subscription  in  April,  1918. 
The  first  loan,  bearing  zl/2  per  cent  inter- 
est, was  offered  in  June,  1917,  and  was 
limited  to  $2,000,000,000.  The  total 
amount  subscribed  was  $3,035,226,850,  an 
over-subscription  of  about  50  per  cent. 
The  number  of  subscriptions  were  more 
than  4,000,000.  The  second  loan  at  4  per 
cent,  was  offered  in  October,  1917,  and 
was  limited  to  $3,000,000,000  and  50  per 
cent  of  subscriptions  in  excess  of  that 
amount.  $3,808,766,150  worth  of  bonds 
were  issued.  The  two  loans,  covering  the 
first  year  of  war,  yielded  $5,808,766,150. 

Q. — How  many  Liberty  Loan 
bonds  have  been  sold  again  by 
investors  ? 

t  A. — The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  es- 
timated on  March  i,  1918 — after  eight 
months  of  trading — that  about  $180,000,- 
ooo  worth  of  the  bonds  had  been  resold. 
This  was  approximately  3  per  cent  of  the 
total  then  issued  by  the  Government. 
Many  of  the  same  bonds,  however,  had 
been  sold  over  and  over  again,  so  the 
percentage  is  not  really  so  large  as  this. 

Q. — How  does  the  war-cost  com- 
pare with  investment  in  navies  ? 

A. — The  combined  sum  spent  in  1913 
by  Great  Britain,  Germany,  and  the 
United  States  on  their  navies  for  con- 
struction, maintenance,  pay,  cruising,  re- 
pairs, coal  and  dock-yard  expenses  would 
pay  for  just  4  days  and  8  hours  of  the 
war. 

Q. — Is  there  a  widely  circulated 
dollar  coin  that  has  no  legal 
recognition? 

A. — Yes.  It  is  known  as  the  Maria 
Theresa  dollar,  and  is  widely  used 
throughout  Arabia  and  northeastern  Af- 
rica, though  it  has  absolutely  no  sanc- 
tion of  any  government  behind  it,  and,  in- 
deed, has  been  declared  a  prohibited 
article  more  than  once.  It  is  a  silver  dol- 
lar with  the  image  of  Maria  Theresa, 
the  famous  Empress  of  Austria,  and  it  is 
reported  that  the  Arab  traders  used  to 
circulate  as  many  as  200  millions  of  them, 


196 


Questions  and  Answers 


' 


Europe 


Q. — What     has     modern 
spent  for  wars? 

A. — According  to  the  United  States 
Treasury  Department,  the  figures  are,  ex- 
clusive of  the  Franco-Prussian  War: 


and  were  doing  so  when  the  war  began. 

This  silver  coin  originally  was  minted 
by  Austria  in  Maria  Theresa's  time.  She 
was  beautiful,  and  her  image  appealed  to 
the  Orientals.  When  the  Austrian  Gov- 
ernment ceased  to  mint  or  use  the  coin, 
they  continued  to  mint  it  and  have  been 

minting  it  ever  since— a  private,  unlegal-  1793-1815  England    and 

ized  piece  of  money  that  still  bears  the          France    $6,250  ooo  ooo 

date  of  the  original  genuine  coins— 1780.  1812-1815  France "and   Rus- 

Lately  great  quantities  of  this  curious  sja                                               450625000 

"people's  money"  have  been  coming  into  lg28  Russia" and" Turkey.'.'        loo.'ooo.'ooo 

the  assay  offices  of  the  world,  because  the  ^o-i^o  Spain    and    Por- 

high  price  of  silver  has  induced  the  trad-          tugal   (civil  war) 250,000,000 

ers  to  deliver  the  coins  to  be  melted.  1830-1847  France    and    Al- 

Q.-What  have  our  previous  wars  ^e  volt's'  '£  Europe! '. '. 

COSt?  1854-1856     England     371,000,000 

A.— The  War  of  1812  with  Great  Brit-  £ran9e. •        332,ooo,ooo 

ain  cost  us  120  millions,  in  round  figures.  i«54-io5o     Sardinia       and 

The  war  with  Mexico  cost  us  173  millions,  Turkey 128,000,000 

in   round   figures.     The   Civil   War   cost  Austria    68,600,000 

the  North  alone  3  billions,  480  millions.  Russia    800,000.000 

The  Spanish-American  War  cost  I  billion,  France    75,000,000 

905  millions.  l859  Austria  127,000,000 

Italy    51,000,000 

Q. — What  did  our  past  wars  COSt  1864  Denmark,  Prussia,  and 

per  vear?  Austria    36,000,000 

*  1866  Prussia  and  Austria..        330,000,000 

A. — The  War  of   1812  cost  us   at  the  1864-1870  Brazil,  Argentina, 

rate  of  44  millions  a  year.    The  Mexican          and   Paraguay  240,000,000 

War  cost   at   the   rate   of   77   millions    a  1865-1866  France  and  Mex- 

year.     The  Civil  War  costs  were  at  the          ico   65,000,000 

rate  of  580  millions  a  year.     The  Span-      1876-1877     Russia    806,547,489 

ish-American   War    (which    lasted   as   an  Turkey 403,273,745 

active  military  war  less  than  a  year),  cost  1900-1001  Transvaal  Repub- 

at  the  rate  of  2  billions,  540  millions  a          lie  and  England   1,000,100,000 

year — that  is,  if  it  had  continued  actively  1004-1905  Russia  and  Japan    2,500,000,000 

throughout  a  whole  year,  at  the  rate  of  The    cost    of    the    Balkan 

expenditure,  it  would  have  amounted  to          wars    1,264,000,000 

that  sum. 

These  figures  show  strikingly  how  the  The  total  sum  is  a  little  over  15  billions 

cost  of  war  has  increased  with  each  gen-  880  millions, 
cration. 


COST  OF  WAR  (ALLIES) 


Q. — What  have  all  the  world's 
wars  cost? 

A. — All  the  wars  of  the  world  (count- 
ing in  the  tremendous  Napoleonic  wars 
and  all  our  American  wars)  cost  24  bil- 
lions 100  millions.  The  present  war  had 
cost  no  billions  up  to  March,  1918. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  war-expenses  are 
at  an  ever-increasing  rate? 

A. — In  Great  Britain  during  the  first 
four  months  of  the  struggle,  the  expendi- 
ture averaged  41/3  million  dollars  a  day. 
During  the  first  quarter  of  1915  the  daily 
rate  passed  above  7  million  dollars.  By 
July  of  that  year  it  was  15  millions,  and 
three  months  later  it  was  ijYz  millions. 
By  February,  1916,  the  rate  was  22  mil- 
lion dollars ;  by  May,  25  millions,  and  by 
October,  1916,  28^/2  million  dollars  a  day. 
Since  then  the  daily  rate  has  passed  30 
million  dollars.  On  March  7,  1918,  Bonar 
Law,  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  an- 
nounced that  the  Empire's  daily  war-ex- 
penses (up  to  February  9,  1918)  had  be- 
come $31,906,362. 

Q. — How  long  would  it  be  before 
the  British  war-debt  could  be 
wiped  out? 

A. — A  careful  (though  anonymous) 
published  analysis  has  shown  that  even 
with  double  the  ordinary  peace  revenue, 
Britain's  war-debt  (up  to  1918)  could 
not  be  paid  off  until  43  years  had 
gone  by — and  that  would  mean,  you  must 
note,  the  entire  use  of  the  entire  revenues 
for  nothing  else  except  to  pay  off  interest 
and  debt. 

Q. — How  much  gold  is  there  in 
sovereigns? 

A. — Eleven-twelfths  of  a  sovereign  is 
gold  and  one-twelfth  is  copper,  but  the 
gold  in  the  sovereign  is  worth  the  face 
value  of  the  coin.  From  one  ounce  of 
standard  gold  (11/12  fine)  sovereigns  to 
the  value  of  £3  175.  ioj4d.  are  coined. 
In  other  words,  a  sovereign  is  an  ingot  of 
standard  gold  123.27447  grains  weight. 
Being  of  an  established  weight  of  gold,  it 
gives  full  gold  value  in  whatever  form 
it  may  be,  since  Great  Britain  has  free 
coinage.  The  State  loses  the  value  o£ 
the  alloy  and  the  workmanship  in  making 
sovereigns. 


Q. — What  is  Free  Coinage: 

A. — Free  coinage  means  that  the  Gov- 
ernment does  not  make  a  profit  by  coining 
a  precious  metal.  It  means  that  any  per- 
son can  deliver  any  quantity  of  gold  to 
the  mint  and  receive  an  equivalent  amount 
of  gold  back  in  sovereigns  with  the  alloy 
given  in  free. 

Q. — What  is  a  sovereign  worth  in 
American  money? 

A.— It  is  worth  $4.8665.  This  is  the  ex- 
act change  you  would  get  in  normal  times 
if  you  exchanged  a  sovereign  at  your 
bank.  For  convenience  in  figuring,  the 
value  of  a  sovereign  or  pound  sterling  is 
usually  taken  as  $5  when  only  round  num- 
bers are  required. 

Q. — Why  did  sovereigns  bring 
only  $4.76  in  New  York  in 
1917? 

A. — Because  the  exchange  rate  between 
Great  Britain  and  America  had  fallen  at 
the  moment  to  4.76  dollars,  not  the  usual 
one  of  4.86  dollars.  The  reasons  for  ex- 
change are  too  complicated  to  explain  in 
a  short  answer,  but,  broadly  speaking, 
fluctuations  in  exchange  are  due  to  fluc- 
tuations in  the  indebtedness  of  any  na- 
tion as  against  others. 

The  war  had  caused  a  tremendous  trade 
balance  in  favor  of  the  United  States. 
Single  sovereigns,  in  consequence,  were 
actually  regarded  as  token  money,  just 
as  twenty  separate  shillings  would  be ; 
but  if,  instead  of  trying  to  change  single 
sovereigns  as  a  traveler  naturally  does, 
he  took  a  couple  of  hundred  of  them  to 
the  mint  in  Washington  to  be  melted  up, 
he  would  get  the  full  value  of  the  gold, 
viz.,  4.86  dollars. 

It  is  this  failure  to  obtain  full  value 
for  gold  sovereigns  in  hotels  and  shops 
in  New  York  and  other  American  cities 
which  has  caused  many  people  to  think 
that  the  amount  of  gold  in  a  sovereign 
was  actually  worth  less  than  $4.86. 

Q. — Is  Great  Britain's  daily  war- 
cost  much  greater  than  that  of 
France? 

A. — Taking  a  mean  sum  based  on  an 
estimate  made  in  Washington  before  the 
costs  reached  the  maximum  figures  that 
we  have  given  elsewhere,  Great  Britain's 


197 


198 


Questions  and  Answers 


daily  cost  does  not,  under  the  best  cir- 
cumstances, fall  below  $30,000,000  any  one 
day. 

France  (on  the  same  basis  of  medium 
figures)  is  spending  $15,369,000  a  day. 
The  actual  figures  are  greater,  beyond 
doubt,  but  we  are  trying  to  give  abso- 
lutely bottom  calculations. 

Q. — Is  not  the  war-cost  small  as 
against  England's  whole 
wealth? 

A. — Never  before  in  England's  history 
has  a  war  (or  any  other  national  or  in- 
ternational catastrophe)  so  much  as 
scratched  her  wealth  noticeably.  But  this 
war  has  almost  laid  an  axe  to  its  very 
basis.  A  fair  estimate  of  England's 
wealth  (the  United  Kingdom)  is  $85,000,- 
000,000.  England's  war  cost  by  March, 
1918,  was  at  least  $30,000,000,000 — more 
than  1/3  of  her  whole  national  wealth,  or 
exactly  1/5  of  the  total  wealth  of  the  en- 
tire British  Empire.  (On  March  7,  1918, 
a  new  vote  of  credit  was  "moved"  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  It  was  for  500,000,- 
ooo  pounds,  and  it  brought  the  total  since 
war  began  to  $33,293,000,000.) 

Q. — What  money  has  Great  Brit- 
ain loaned  to  its  Allies? 

A.— Up  to  August  I.  1917,  the  total 
was: 

Loans  to  Dominions $   730,000,000 

Loans  to  Allies 5,125,000,000 


Total    $5,855,000,000 

Q. — Are   all   these   loans   recover- 
able? 

A. — No.  Bonar  Law,  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  said  in  1918  that  at  that  time 
only  $1,300,000,000  were  recoverable. 

The  loans  made  to  Belgium  probably 
never  will  be  collected,  but  will  be  can- 
celled as  a  matter  of  generosity  and  jus- 
tice both.  Serbia,  Montenegro  and 
Roumania  probably  never  could  repay 
their  borrowings  even  if  pressed. 

Q. — Has    Great   Britain   borrowed 
much? 

A. — Much  of  the  British  financing  is 
done  by  using  so-called  Treasury  bills 
and  Exchequer  bonds  (short-term  note 
financing,  broadly  speaking).  Of  these, 
not  less  than  $5,000,000,000  were  outstand- 
ing in  September,  1917. 


By  straight  loans  the  following  sums 
were  obtained: 

Nov.,  1914 — 3l/2  per  cent...  $1,750,000,000 
Nov.,  1915 — 4l/2  per  cent...  $3,080,000,000 
Nov.,  1917 — 5  per  cent...  $5,000,000,000 

Total    $9,830,000,000 

Q. — How  much  money  had  Great 
Britain  borrowed  after  three 
years  ? 

A. — Great  Britain  had  borrowed,  in  one 
form  and  another,  $17,875,000,000. 

Q. — Did  the  war  increase  Great 
Britain's  national  debt? 

A. — Yes,  it  increased  the  national  debt 
enormously.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, speaking  in  Parliament,  esti- 
mated that  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year, 
1917-1918  it  would  "not  exceed  28  billions 
709  millions."  The  national  debt  of  Great 
Britain  before  the  war  had  been  less  than 
3  billions  500  millions. 

Q. — How  many  British  war  saving 
certificates  have  been  bought? 

A. — Up  to  January  26,  1918,  certificates 
to  the  face  value  of  $550,000,000  had  been 
purchased.  This  was  two  years  after  the 
scheme  had  been  adopted. 

Q. — Has  England  considered  the 
conscription  of  capital? 

A. — Yes.  There  has  long  been  a  strong 
party  in  England  which  urged  that  not 
only  should  the  income  taxes  be  increased, 
but  that  the  Government  should  go  boldly 
to  property  owners  and  take  a  percentage 
of  their  capital,  to  help  defray  the  hor- 
rible expenditure  for  the  war.  Even 
Chancellor  Bonar  Law  and  Premier  Lloyd 
George  are  understood  to  be  sympathetic 
to  the  idea. 

The  trouble  is  that  the  85  billions  of 
values  is  not  held  as  cash,  and  it  would 
be  obviously  impossible  for  a  whole  na- 
tion to  start  selling  property  at  the  same 
time,  to  raise  money  for  taxes.  To  meet 
this  difficulty,  it  has  been  proposed  to  col- 
lect this  tax  in  installments  spread  <  over 
a  number  of  years,  but  in  that  case  it  be- 
comes substantially  just  an  income  tax. 

Q. — What  is  the  income  tax  in 
Great  Britain? 

A. — When  the  \var  began,  the  income 
tax  stood  at  I  shilling  2  pence;  it  was  in- 
creased to  2  shillings  6  pence  in  the  pound 


Cost  of  War  (Allies} 


199 


in  July,  1915;  to  3  shillings  6  pence  in 
December,  1915 ;  and  to  5  shillings  in 
1916.  In  addition,  there  was  a  super-tax 
of  3  shillings  6  pence  in  the  pound  for 
large  incomes. 

Q. — At  five  shillings,  does  this  not 
take  away  one-quarter  of  one's 
income  ? 

A. — Yes.  The  weight  of  the  5  shilling 
income  tax  is,  however,  made  easier  to 
those  whose  incomes  do  not  exceed 
£2,500,  as  far  as  the  earned  part  is  con- 
cerned. That  earned  part  will  now  pay 
2  shillings  3  pence  to  £500  ($2,500)  ;  2 
shillings  6  pence  to  £1,000;  3  shillings  to 
£i.500j  3  shillings  8  pence  to  £2,000;  and 
4  shillings  4  pence  in  the  pound  when  the 
earned  income  does  not  exceed  £2,500,  at 
which  figure  the  super-tax  becomes  pay- 
able, if  the  whole  income  exceeds  £3,000. 

And  so,  also,  when  an  unearned  income 
does  not  exceed  £2,000  ($10,000),  the  in- 
come tax  will  be  3  shillings  to  £500;  3 
shillings  6  pence  to  £1,000;  4  shillings  to 
£1,500;  and  4  shillings  6  pence  in  the  pound 
when  the  income  does  not  exceed  £2,000. 
This  relief  is  due  in  addition  to  any  other 
relief,  or  where  exemption  or  abatement 
reduces  the  taxable  amount ;  but  the  re- 
lief must  be  on  account  of  the  claimant's 
own  income  and  his  own  income  only. 

In  figuring  this,  figure  25  cents  to  the 
shilling,  2  cents  to  the  penny,  and  $5  to 
the  pound,  and  you  will  have  a  close  idea 
of  the  British  tax. 

Q. — What  proportion  of  excess 
profits  is  taken  by  the  British 
Government? 

A. — Originally  50  per  cent,  it  was  then 
raised  to  60  per  cent,  and  for  1917  was 
to  be  80  per  cent,  calculated  to  bring  the 
Exchequer  £180,000,000  ($878,400,000). 

Q. — What  were  the  anticipated 
revenue  and  expenditure  for 
1917-1918? 

A. — Bonar  Law  expected  to  get  £612,- 
500,000  ($2j98o,73i,25o),  an  increase  of 
$190,000,000  only  over  last  year's  receipts. 
He  was  imposing  increased  taxation, 
which  was  expected  to  swell  the  total  to 
$3,096,000,000.  The  expenditure  for  the 
year  was  expected  to  reach  $11,145,000,- 
ooo.  Evidently,  therefore,  at  least  £1,651,- 
781,000  ($8,037,000,000)  would  have'to  be 
borrowed  during  the  year.  The  new  year 
was  entered  on  with  $89,000,000  in  the 
Treasury,  and  over  $2,400,000,000  Treas- 
ury Bills  outstanding. 


Q. — How  much  was  needed  to  meet 
interest  on  the  British  war- 
debt? 

A. — In  his  budget  speech  in  May,  1917, 
Bonar  Law  set  aside  the  sum  of  £211,500,- 
ooo  ($1,029,264,750  at  normal  rate  of 
$4.8665  American  money  to  the  pound 
sterling)  to  meet  debt  charges.  Only 
£17,000,000  ($82,730,500)  of  this  gigantic 
sum  was  for  pre-war  charges,  the  rest 
being  due  entirely  to  loans  raised  since 
the  war  began.  Actually,  therefore,  the 
annual  amount  which  Great  Britain  has  to 
find  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  money 
lent  the  government  exceeds  her  total  an- 
nual pre-war  revenue  and  expenditure. 

Q. — What  was  the  exact  revenue 
of  Great  Britain  in  pre-war 
days  and  what  is  it  now? 

(in  round  numbers) 

1912-13    $919,000,000 

1913-14    947,000,000 

1914-15    1,103,000,000 

1915-16    1,658,000,000 

1916-17    2,790,000,000 

1917-18   (est.)    2,980,000,000 

Q. — What  was  the  cause  of  the  big 
jump  in  1916? 

A. — The  estimated  revenue  for  1916-17 
was  $2,125,000,000,  so  that  actually  $665,- 
000,000  more  was  obtained  than  was  ex- 
pected. This  was  chiefly  due  to  the 
Excess  Profits  Tax,  which  brought  in 
$680,000,000,  instead  of  the  anticipated 
$375,ooo,ooo,  and  Income  Tax  which,  ex- 
pected to  bring  in  $750,000,000,  actually 
yielded  $997,500,000. 

Q. — How  has  British  duty  on  tea 
increased? 

A. — In  August,  1914,  it  was  raised  from 
Sd.  to  8d.  per  pound.  In  December,  1915, 
it  was  raised  to  is.  per  pound.  The  duty 
on  coffee  since  August,  1914,  has  been  in- 
creased to  6d.  a  pound,  the  duty  on  cocoa 
to  4^d.  a  pound.  The  duty  on  sugar 
was  found  at  is.  lod.  per  cwt.  when  the 
war  broke  out.  It  was  then  advanced  to 
93.  4d.,  and  in  1916  to  145.  To  the  original 
tobacco  duty  of  35.  8d.,  is.  lod.  was  add- 
ed in  December,  1915.  A  duty  of  6d.  a 
gallon  was  placed  on  motor  spirits,  and 
some  special  import  duties  were  imposed 
on  what  were  regarded  as  luxuries — 
33  1/3  per  cent  on  motor  cars,  musical  in- 
struments, clocks,  cinema  films  and  the 
like.  The  importation  of  some  of  these 
things  has  now  been  entirely  prohibited. 
A  duty  of  35.  6d.  per  10,000  was  levied  on 


200 


Questions  and  Answers 


imported  matches  and  an  excise  duty  of 
35.  4d.  on  locally  made  matches,  with  a 
further  addition  where  more  than  eighty 
matches  were  found  in  a  box.  Every 
tinder  box  was  subject  to  a  duty  of  5s. 
The  extra  duties  levied  on  beer  make  the 
whole  tax  255.  per  barrel.  (Figure  the 
English  penny  (d.)  roughly  at  2  cents 
American,  and  the  shilling  (s.)  roughly 
at  25  cents.) 

Q. — Did  Russia  raise  her  costs  by 
tax  or  loan  ? 

A. — About  half  of  the  money  needed 
was  raised  by  means  of  Treasury  bonds, 
many  of  which  were  taken  up  by  the 
Allies,  among  others  by  Japan. 

At  the  end  of  July,  1916,  the  war  lia- 
bilities consisted  of: 

Roubles 

9,000,000,000  Treasury  bonds. 
($4,630,000,000) 

5,000,000,000  Internal  long  term  bonds. 
($2,573,000,000) 

7,406,000,000  External  long  term  bonds. 
($3,812,000,000) 


21,406,000,000  roubles,  total. 
($11,015,500,000) 

This,  however,  does  not  anything  like 
represent  all  her  liability  at  that  time,  as 
the  Czar's  Government  had  arranged  for 
credits  in  London  to  the  extent  of  2,000,- 
000,000  roubles  ($1,029,200,000)  to  meet 
liabilities  in  respect  of  the  foreign  pur- 
chase of  war  material.  In  addition,  the 
Government  had  issued  4,899,000,000  ($2,- 
408,000,000)  worth  of  paper  money  since 
the  war  started. 

The  total  Russian  loans  up  to  the  time 
of  the  revolution  have  been  estimated  as 
25  billion  dollars. 

Q. — What  did  France  expend  for 
the  war? 

A. — Figures  submitted  to  the  French 
Chamber  of  Deputies  stated  that  from 
August  i,  1914,  to  December  31,  1917, 
France  had  appropriated  87,200,000,000 
francs  for  war  expenses.  This  sum,  com- 
puted at  the  normal  value  in  American 
money  of  19.3  cents  to  the  franc,  is  $16,- 
829,600,000. 

Q. — How    many    war    loans    has 
France  raised? 

A. — Only  two  public  loans  had  been 
raised  to  April,  1918.  The  first  realized 
15,130,000,000  francs  ($2,920,000,000),  the 
second  11,360,000,000  francs  ($2,192,000,- 


ooo).  Forty  per  cent  of  the  first  loan  was 
in  cash,  and  55  per  cent  of  the  second. 

The  French  Government,  like  the  Brit- 
ish, accepted  payment  in  what  was  the 
French  equivalent  of  British  Consols,  viz., 
Rentes.  In  the  first  loan  this  Rentes  scrip 
to  the  value  of  4,430,000,000  francs  irre- 
deemable 3  per  cent,  and  24,400,000  francs 
redeemable  3l/2  per  cent  was  accepted. 

Holders  of  Rentes  were  permitted  to 
transfer  to  the  war  loans  on  condition  that 
they  took  up  a  definite  proportion  of  war 
loan  stock  for  cash  in  addition.  The 
Government  also  accepted  various  other 
State  bonds  in  payment  of  war  loan 
stock.  The  reason  why  the  second  loan 
was  smaller,  and  more  of  it  in  cash,  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  so  much  of  the  Rentes 
had  been  already  transferred  to  the  first 
loan. 

Q. — What  did  the  first  French 
loan  actually  realize? 

A.— The  first  loan  realized  $2,920,000,- 
ooo ;  but,  as  it  was  issued  at  88,  the  actual 
money  obtained  was  only  $2,575,000,000. 

Q. — What  financial  advances  did 
France  make  to  its  Allies? 

A. — During  a  discussion  late  in  Jan- 
uary, 1918,  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputfes, 
over  a  bill  authorizing  further  advances 
to  "Allied  and  friendly  nations,"  a  deputy 
stated  that  these  advances  amounted  t<? 
408,000,000  francs  ($78,294,000),  bringing 
the  total  advances  to  6,421,000,000  francs 
($1,239,000,000),  and  asked  the  Govern- 
ment's intention  regarding  the  Russian 
coupons.  He  said  that  the  French  Gov- 
ernment already  had  paid  2,000,000  francs 
to  French  holders  of  Russian  bonds,  thus 
favoring  them  over  the  holders  in  other 
countries  of  bonds  whose  coupons  had 
not  been  paid  since  the  beginning  of  the 
war. 

Finance  Minister  Klotz  replied  that  the 
financial  actions  taken  in  the  name  of 
Russia  were  independent  of  any  changes 
in  regime  there.  The  Allies  were  dis- 
cussing the  question  of  the  Russian  cou- 
pons. Meanwhile,  he  said,  France  would 
pay  the  February  coupons  as  it  had  paid 
those  falling  due  in  January. 

Q. — How  is  it  that  France  borrows 
from  us,  yet  lends  to  her  Al- 
lies? 

A. — Neither  Great  Britain  nor  France 
has  advanced  much  actual  cash  to  its  Al- 
lies. Between  them  they  provided  the 
Belgian  Government  with  what  it  needed 
for  out-of-pocket  expenses,  but  practic- 


Cost  of  War  (Allies} 


201 


ally  all  the  loans  were  given  to  pay  for 
supplies  manufactured  in  the  country  ad- 
vancing the  money.  That  is,  Italy  might 
obtain  a  large  amount  of  war  material 
from  Great  Britain,  but  instead  of  having 
to  pay  for  it,  the  British  Government  set- 
tles the  bill  for  her  with  the  British  man 
ufacturer.  Thus,  though  Italy  is  liable  for 
the  money,  and  must  pay  the  interest 
thereon,  the  money  itself  actually  re- 
mains in  England  all  the  time. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  loans  which  the 
United  States  is  granting  to  the  Allies. 
None  of  the  money  thus  advanced  leaves 
the  United  States,  but  remains  in  the 
hands  of  American  manufacturers  who 
have  filled  orders  for  England,  France, 
Italy,  Belgium  and  Russia. 

Q. — What  war  loans  have  the  Ital- 
ians raised? 

A. — Their  fourth  was  raised  in  April, 
1917,  and  realized  3,616,000,000  lire  ($697,- 


880,000),  of  which  2,490,000,000  lire  was 
new  money. 

Q. — Did  Serbia,  Roumania  and  Bel- 
gium spend  much  per  day  ? 

A. — About  $2,968,000  a  day  between 
them,  and  most  of  this,  of  course,  was 
money  advanced  by  the  stronger  Allies. 

Q. — What  is  Italy's  daily  war  ex- 
penditure? 

A. — It  Is  about  $4,612,000. 

Q. — Is   this   greater  than  that  of 
Russia? 

A. — No.  Russia's  daily  expenditure  up 
to  the  time  of  the  revolution  in  March, 
1917,  was  $13,000,000. 


COST  OF  WAR  (CENTRAL  POWERS) 


Q. — How  much  is  the  war  costing 
Germany  daily? 

A. — It  was  said  early  in  1917  in  a  cable 
from  England  that  it  had  been  officially 
announced  that  the  daily  expenditure  of 
Germany  on  the  war  was  $25,000,000. 

It  was  announced  in  the  Reichstag  on 
March  16,  1916,  that  the  cost  of  the  last 
months  of  1915  was  two  milliards  of 
marks  monthly — that  is,  $476,400,000. 
That  would  make  the  daily  expenditure 
just  about  $15,920,000.  The  Minister  said 
further  that  during  January  and  February 
the  cost  had  been  less ;  that  in  spite  of 
the  immense  shell  and  gun  production, 
and  increased  cost  of  raw  materials,  the 
expenditure  in  January,  1916,  was  just 
about  the  same  as  in  January,  1915. 

On  the  basis  of  the  official  American 
estimates  for  the  three  years  up  to  Au- 
gust I,  1917,  the  daily  cost  for  the  Ger- 
man Empire,  after  America  entered  the 
war,  would  figure  out  $18,036,529. 

Q. — What  does  the  war  cost  Aus- 
tria-Hungary daily? 

A. — The  daily  cost  of  the  war  to  Aus- 
tria-Hungary was  closely  figured  at  $8,- 
858,447. 

Q. — What     loans     has     Germany 
floated? 

A. — Up  to  March  I,  1918,  Germany 
had  floated  seven  loans,  all  at  5  per  cent. 
The  amounts  obtained  were  as  follow : — 

First   loan    $1,120,000,000 

Second    loan    2,275,750,000 

Third  loan   3,040,000,000 

Fourth  loan   2,690,000,000 

Fifth   loan    2,875,000,000 

Sixth  loan    3,190,000,000 

Seventh    loan    3,125,000,000 


Total  $18,315,750,000 

Q. — Do  Bulgaria  and  Turkey  spend 
much  per  day? 

A. — Yes  They  spend  (combined) 
about  $1,325,000. 

Q. — What  was  the  German  finan- 
cial policy  for  war? 

A. — A  famous  British  banker  said  in 
February,  1918,  that  two  decisions  were 
apparently  reached:  First,  to  raise  all 


the  paper  money  required,  regardless  of 
inflation,  through  the  Reichsbank,  and, 
in  case  this  proved  insufficient,  through 
the  loan  banks ;  and  second,  to  leave  all 
arrangements  for  rectifying  the  finances 
until  after  the  war. 

Q. — How   did   Germany's   war   fi- 
nance plan  work? 

A. — A  financial  expert  said  in  1918: 
"In  December,  1917,  there  were,  round- 
ly, $1,868,300,000  of  the  Darlehnskassen 
notes  outstanding,  and  the  Reichsbank 
had  $317,000,000  worth  of  them.  The 
total  issues  of  paper  money  in  Germany, 
including  Reichsbank  notes,  Imperial 
Treasury  notes,  notes  of  other  banks,  and, 
since  established,  Darlehnskassen  notes 
was  as  follows  at  different  dates :  Decem- 
ber, 1913,  $700,000,000;  December,  1914, 
$1,629,000,000;  December,  1915,  $2,377,- 
000,000;  December,  1916,  $2,912,000,000; 
December,  1917,  $4,783,000,000.  The 
Reichsbank's  own  notes  outstanding.  $459,- 
500,000  on  July  23,  1914,  were  $2,787,000,- 
ooo  on  December  31,  1917.  (These  figures 
are  a  little  larger  than  as  they  figure  in 
German  money.) 

"These  notes  go  out  into  the  hands  of 
the  public  and  to  a  large  extent  find  them- 
selves on  deposit  with  the  joint-stock 
banks,  where  they  form  the  base  for  the 
extension  of  further  credits  by  the  joint- 
stock  banks.  Hence  the  deposits  of  the 
banking  institutions  in  Germany  have 
increased  to  a  very  large  extent,  and  it  Is 
estimated  that  the  total  increase  since 
the  beginning  of  the  war  amounts  to  the 
equivalent  of  about  £1,000,000,000  (about 
$5,000,000,000).  We  see  the  same  thing 
happening  in  England,  in  America,  and 
in  other  countries." 

Q. — What   was    the    German    Na- 
tional Bank  Law  before  war? 

A. — Under  the  law  before  the  war  the 
Reichsbank  could  (and  still  can)  create 
credit  balances  without  any  limit  other 
than  financial  expediency  fixes,  but  the 
note  issues  for  public  circulation  were 
limited  to  three  times  the  cash  balance 
on  hand,  covered  one-third  by  cash  and 
two-thirds  by  discounted  bills  ^  falling  due 
within  three  months  and  bearing  (except 
in  special  cases  of  two-name  paper) 
three  names.  The  ordinary  Government 
Treasury  bill  was  not  then  a  legal  bill  of 
exchange  for  purposes  of  covering  note 
issues. 


2O2 


'Cost  of  War  (Central  Powers} 


203 


Q. — What  new  German  Bank  Laws 
were  passed  during  war? 

A. — Immediately  upon  the  outbreak  of 
the  war,  on  Aug.  4,  1914,  the  German  law 
was  changed  in  two  important  particulars 
to  permit  of  the  expansion  of  credit  and 
circulation.  It  was  made  legal  for  the 
Reichsbank  to  accept  Treasury  bills  with 
two  official  signatures  as  "bills  of  ex- 
change." The  Government  also  revived 
by  law  a  system  of  special  "loan  banks," 
or  Darlehnskassen,  used  in  1848  and  in 
the  Franco-Prussian  war.  These  banks 
made  loans  such  as  ordinary  commercial 
banks  are  unable  to  make,  a  class  of 
"dead  loans,"  to  individuals,  firms,  and 
municipalities  to  the  extent  of  40  to  85 
per  cent  of  the  value  of  various  securi- 
ties offered,  in  the  form  of  special  Gov- 
ernment notes. 

These  banks  were  established  for  the 
purpose  not  only  of  lightening  the  burden 
of  the  Reichsbank  and  the  joint-stock 
banks  in  the  necessary  credit  extensions 
of  the  emergency,  but  the  notes  issued  by 
them  were  by  law  made  receivable  at  the 
Reichsbank  as  cash  for  its  necessary  one- 
third  cash  cover  in  the  issuance  of  its 
own  notes. 

Q. — Has  war  financing  not  seri- 
ously inflated  German  cur- 
rency? 

A. — Dr.  Havenstein,  President  of  the 
Reichsbank,  recently  said  that  the  banks 
will  be  continued  for  four  or  five  years 
after  the  war,  and  will  be  available  for 
any  sort  of  lending  on  easy  terms.  He 
said  further  that  when  peace  comes,  the 
holders  of  war  loan  will  find  themselves 
compelled  to  convert  their  holdings  into 
hard  cash  for  raw  materials,  new  ma- 
chinery, etc.,  which  will  throw  millions  of 
war  loan  on  the  market.  The  responsible 
authorities  recognize  that  there  will  be  in- 
sufficient buyers,  and  that  the  fall  in  the 
price  would  depreciate  all  securities,  so 
the  plan  is  to  form  a  consortium,  con- 
sisting of  the  Reichsbank,  the  joint-stock 
banks,  and  the  Darlehnskassen.  The 
.Darlehnskassen  and,  to  an  extent,  the 
Reichsbank,  will  provide  the  capital  for 
the  absorption  of  war  loans,  and  the 
Reichsbank  and  branches  will  take  up  the 
stock  as  it  is  offered  for  sale.  The  stock 
so  absorbed  will  be  gradually  redistrib- 
uted over  a  number  of  years  through  the 
Reichsbank  and  the  joint-stock  banks. 

Q. — What  was  Germany's  financial 
condition  in  1918? 

A. — It  was  claimed  by  British  financial 
papers  that  in  January,  1918,  the  notes 


then  in  circulation  in  Germany  had  passed 
the  $4,000,000,000  mark. 
The  details  were  given  as  follows: 

(round  numbers) 

Reichsbank  notes  $2,800,000,000 

Treasury  notes   87,500,000 

Loan  notes  1,565,000,000 


Total  $4,442,500,000 

These  figures,  it  will  be  noted,  are  a  lit- 
tle lower  than  others  cited  by  other  cal- 
culators. The  financial  war  statements  of 
all  the  nations  lend  themselves,  of  course, 
to  all  sorts  of  statements — according  to 
whatever  one  may  want  to  prove. 

Q. — Did  the  war  increase  Ger- 
many's governmental  ex- 
penses? 

A. — It  laid  a  steadily  enlarging  burden 
on  all  the  nations,  and  Germany  had  to 
carry  a  constantly  growing  load.  It  was 
reported  early  in  1918  that  the  ordinary 
receipts  and  expenditures  of  the  German 
budget  for  1918  balance  at  $1,830,000,000, 
as  compared  with  approximately  $1,250,- 
000,000  in  the  previous  year.  The  increase 
was  said  to  be  due  mainly  to  the  higher 
amount  required  for  interest  on  the  na- 
tional debt. 

Q. — Will  American  holders  of  Ger- 
man securities  get  their 
money? 

A. — Any  treaty  of  peace  or  the  sup- 
plementary conventions  will  foresee  and 
settle  all  the  disputes  which  may  arise 
from  such  financial  relations. 


Q. — What  classes   paid   the  most 
income  in  Prussia  in  1918? 

A. — The  wealthy  classes  did,  as  they 
were  doing  everywhere,  in  so  far  as  actual 
individual  amounts  of  money  were  con- 
cerned. But  the  backbone  of  taxation  for 
income  was  furnished  by  the  people  of 
small  incomes.  Thus  54  per  cent  of  the 
number  of  taxpayers  came  from  the  peo- 
ple with  annual  incomes  from  $225  to 
$750  and  the  next  class  (incomes  of  $750 
to  $2,375)  furnished  19  per  cent  of  the 
taxpayers. 

Q. — Had  the  general  German  in- 
comes increased? 

A. — Not  the  general  incomes,  but  there 
was  a  large  increase  among  the  trades- 


204 


Questions  and  Answers 


people  and  certain  business  men  and  in- 
dustrials. It  was  due,  no  doubt,  to  war 
profits,  as  in  the  other  belligerent  coun- 
tries. Thus  the  increases  of  Prussia's 
taxpayers  paying  on  incomes  of  $6,000  to 
$25,000  had  jumped  by  8  per  cent,  incomes 
from  $25,000  to  $125,000  had  increased 
27  pe.r  cent,  those  of  $125,000  to  $250,000 
had  increased  by  40  per  cent,  and  the 
jump  in  incomes  of  more  than  $250,000 
a  year  was  actually  47  per  cent 

Q. — Are  German  war  taxes  falling 
heavily  on  the  small  people? 

A. — The  Prussian  Kingdom's  taxes  had 
begun,  by  1917,  to  reach  further  than 
ever  before  for  the  small  incomes,  while 
increasing  for  the  larger  ones.  At  the 
end  of  the  third  year  of  the  war  the 
actual  number  of  taxpayers  in  the  income 
classes  up  to  $225  had  increased  from 
36.7  per  cent  to  37.5  per  cent  of  the  whole. 

If  the  incomes  above  $750  are  taken  it 
is  found  that  while  the  number  of  tax- 
payers decreased  from  888,000  to  842,000 
— that  is,  by  5  per  cent — the  total  income 
increased  from  $1,400,000,000  to  $1,900,- 
000,000,  or  by  7.4  per  cent,  making  an 
increase  in  average  income  for  this  class 
of  13.4  per  cent. 

Q. — How  did  the  German  people 
stand  the  war  financially? 

A. — The  figures  are  very  confusing  be- 
cause, in  the  first  place,  they  were  given 
in  elaborately  "camouflaging"  form  by 
German  authorities  and  in  the  second 
place  they  have  been  re-shaped  and  re- 
stated as  they  passed  through  the  censor- 
ship of  Germany's  European  antagonists. 
We  have,  however,  a  fairly  reliable  indi- 
cation of  the  internal  financial  condition 
in  a  report  of  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia. 

According  to  the  figures,  the  year  1916, 
as  compared  with  the  year  1914,  showed 
a  decrease  of  2.2  per  cent  in  the  number 
of  individual  taxpayers,  and  a  decrease 
of  5-3  per  cent  in  the  number  of  com- 
panies, etc.,  paying  taxes,  the  latter  due, 
presumably,  to  the  shutting  down,  for  one 
cause  or  another,  of  many  concerns.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  total  income  coming 
under  tax  had  risen  from  $4,525,000,000 
in  1914  to  $4,700,000,000  in  1916,  making 
an  increase  from  $605  per  capita  of  popu- 
lation to  $625. 

Q. — Did  very  many  Germans  be- 
come rich  through  the  war? 

A. — The  percentage  increases  in  high 
annual  incomes  were  surprising,  but  this 


did  not  mean  that  the  increase  by  indi- 
viduals was  very  great. 

The  number  of  so-called  "millionaires" 
— that  is,  people  with  annual  incomes  of 
more  than  1,000,000  marks  ($230,000)  — 
rose  from  twenty-seven  in  1896  to  ninety- 
one  in  1914,  and  to  134  in  1916  in  Prussia 
alone. 

Q. — Did  German  business  increase 
during  the  war? 

A. — The  returns  of  the  Reichsbank  for 
January  7,  1918,  showed  a  total  clearing 
business  of  the  Reichsbank  for  1917  of 
$23,000,000,000,  as  compared  with  16  bil- 
lions in  1916,  14  billions  in  1915,  16  bil- 
lions in  1914,  and  17  billions  in  1913,  the 
last  complete  year  of  peace.  The  expla- 
nation given  by  the  Frankfurter  Zeitung 
for  the  increase  in  1917  was  the  issue 
of  war  loans,  combined  with  increased 
Stock  Exchange  business  and  the  de- 
creased purchasing  power  of  money. 
Further  statistics  of  the  Frankfurter 
Zeitung  gave  the  increase  in  capital  by 
existing  companies  and  the  issue  of 
shares  by  new  companies  as  33  billions 
for  the  first  half-year  of  1917  and  70 
billions  for  the  second  half,  the  main 
part  of  the  rise  in  the  second  half-year 
being  due  by  the  increase  in  capital  of 
37  billions  in  November  by  anilin  con- 
cerns. 

Q. — Did  the  Franco-Prussian  War 
cost  much? 

A. — Comparatively  little  in  money  ac- 
tually spent  for  war.  The  Treasury  De- 
partment's experts  figure  as  follows : 

1870-1871   j£rance   $1,580,000,000 

'        '     ( Germany  $954,400,000 


Q. — How   much    did    the    Franco- 
Prussian  War  cost  per  day? 

^  A. — From  the  declaration  of  war  to  the 
signing  of  peace,  the  war  lasted  exactly 
299  days.  For  that  period  (part  of  which 
saw  no  fighting  at  all),  the  daily  cost  to 
Germany  was  $3,182,000,  and  France's 
daily  cost  was  $5,267,000. 

Q. — Did  Turkey  get  much  money 
from  Germany? 

A. — A  German  expert,  Emil  Zimmer- 
mann,  estimated  in  May,  1917,  that  Ger- 
many had  advanced  to  Turkey  nearly 
3,000,000,000  marks  ($714,000,000)  up  to 
that  time. 


Cost  of  War  {Central  Powers) 


205 


Q. — What  are   the  details  of  the 
Austrian  war  loans  ? 

A. — The  sixth  loan  was  floated  in  June, 
1917.  The  following  sums  were  obtained 
by  loans : — 

Krone  (or  Crown) 

First  loan  2,200,700,000 

Second  loan   2,688,300,000 

Third  loan    4,202,600,000 

Fourth  loan   4,520,300,000 

Fifth  loan  4,412,800,000 

Sixth  loan 4,490,000,000 


Total  22,924,700,000 

At  the  pre-war  rate  of  exchange  (20.26 
cents  American  to  the  Krone)  this  would 
represent  $5,644,544,220.  The  first  and 
second  loans  were  both  for  short  terms, 
viz.,  five  and  ten  years  respectively.  The 
third  was  for  fifteen  years,  and  the 
fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  for  longer  periods. 
All  were  issued  at  5  per  cent. 

Q. — Does  the  Austrian  Empire 
raise  an  Imperial  Loan? 

A. — Separate  loans  are  raised  by  the 
Kingdoms  of  Austria  and  Hungary,  which 
finance  themselves  independently  of  each 
other.  Hungary  has  raised  several  loans, 
the  first  two  bringing  in  a  little  more 
than  $450,000,000. 

Q. — How  did  the  Austro-Hun- 
garian  State  Bank  help  to  fi- 
nance the  war? 

A. — The  first  direct  call  which  was 
made  upon  the  bank  was  based  upon  an 
agreement  of  August  14,  1914.  The  two 
Governments  (Austria  and  Hungary) 
took  up  2,000,000,000  crowns  (at  normal 
exchange  the  Austro-Hungarian  crown  is 
worth  $0.2026)  against  deposit  of  treas- 
ury bills  to  the  amount  of  2,666.000,000 
crowns,  redeemable  in  gold  and  bearing 
interest  at  5  per  cent.  A  second  agree- 
ment (October  7,  1914)  allowed  the 
Governments  to  borrow  not  more  than 


2,000,000,000  crowns,  and  a  supplementary 
agreement  of  April  12,  1915,  placed  a 
further  800,000,000  crowns  at  their  dis- 
posal on  the  same  terms. 

Q. — Did  Austria  depend  heavily  on 
the  State  Bank? 

A. — It  did.  In  the  middle  of  1915  the 
Governments  again  had  recourse  to  the 
bank  and  this  made  it  necessary  for  the 
directors  to  make  a  general  decision  on 
the  whole  attitude  toward  Government 
applications  for  loans  during  the  war. 
The  only  alternative  to  refusal  was  to 
place  the  note  credit  of  the  bank  at  the 
disposal  of  the  Governments  to  an  un- 
limited extent.  The  directors  were  not 
prepared  to  take  the  responsibility  of  a 
refusal.  They  gave  their  consent  to  the 
Government  applications,  on  conditions 
that  recourse  should  be  had  to  the  bank 
only  when  no  other  method  of  obtaining 
money  was  practicable. 

Ten  various  agreements  have  been 
made  at  various  dates  from  July  15,  1915, 
to  November  24,  1917,  under  each  of 
which  the  Governments  have  been  au- 
thorized to  borrow  1,500,000,000  crowns 
against  promissory  notes,  the  definite  al- 
location of  which  is  to  take  place  not 
later  than  six  months  after  the  conclusion 
of  peace.  The  amount  actually  borrowed 
"in  virtue  of  these  agreements  by  Decem- 
ber 7,  1917,  was  13,200,000,000  crowns. 

Q. — Did  Austria  ever  make  any  re- 
ports as  to  internal  finances? 

A. — The  first  statement  of  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  State  Bank  since  the  outbreak 
of  the  war  was  made  on  December  7, 
1917.  It  was  not  complete,  but  it  showed 
the  gold  reserve  at  that  date  to  be  $55,- 
000,000,  as  against  $257,800,000  at  the  end 
of  July,  1914,  and  note  circulation  to  be 
$7,375,000,000,  as  against  $433,500,000. 
This  gold  reserve  was  the  smallest  of  any 
European  state  bank  except  those  of  Nor- 
way and  Denmark.  The  note  circulation 
was  $2,900,000,000  larger  than  that  of  any 
other  bank  except  the  Bank  of  Russia. 


GERMANY  (INDUSTRIAL  STRUCTURE) 


Q. — What   was   the   internal   con- 
dition of  Germany  in  1918? 

A. — The  iron-clad  censorship  of  the 
German  Government  has  prevented  us 
from  knowing  as  exactly  as  we  should 
like,  and  individual  reports  of  travelers 
are  varying  or  conflicting.  Some  things, 
however,  are  certain.  The  nation  was 
dangerously  divided  in  its  sentiment  as 
to  the  war.  The  tremendous  traffic  from 
east  to  west  and  north  to  south  had  put 
the  country's  railroads  in  bad  condition, 
both  as  to  rolling  stock  and  roadbed. 
There  was  practically  no  travel  except 
for  government  purposes,  a  prohibitive 
tax  being  placed  upon  passenger  tickets 
for  all  civilians.  No  freight  or  express 
was  accepted  except  for  the  Government's 
use  against  the  enemy.  Many  raw  mate- 
rials, particularly  cotton,  were  lacking, 
and  people  were  dying  of  disease  and 
starvation. 

The  Neue  Wiener  Journal,  of  Vienna, 
stated  on  December  15,  1917,  that  in  the 
Austrian  capital  during  1917,  45,000  peo- 
ple died  of  all  diseases.  In  comparison, 
to  this  there  were  but  24,000  births.  Of 
the  total  number  of  deaths  12,000  were 
caused  by  tuberculosis,  a  disease  which 
was  steadily  increasing  because  of  the 
poor  food  conditions. 

Q. — Just   how   does    all    Germany 
compare  in  size  with  us? 

A. — In  size  all  Germany  is  not  so  big 
as  Texas.  In  fact,  Germany  could  be 
put  into  Texas,  and  there  still  would  be 
enough  of  Texas  unoccupied  to  accom- 
modate New  York  and  New  Jersey,  or 
Arkansas  and  Rhode  Island,  or  all  of 
Illinois  except  a  tiny  edge. 

Or  if  you  want  to  figure  it  another  way, 
the  United  States  could  take  in  fifteen 
German  Empires. 

Q. — How  does  German  man-power 
compare  with  American? 

A. — Germany  has  about  65  per  cent  of 
the  population  we  have.  (Germany  had 
65  million  people  in  1910,  and  we  had  an 
estimated  population  of  102  million  in 
1917.)  But,  comparing  the  areas  of  the 
two  countries,  the  German  population  is 
proportionately  14^  times  bigger  than 
ours — or,  rather,  if  the  United  States  were 
as  densely  populated,  instead  of  having 
102  millions  we  would  have  950  millions, 
or  almost  a  billion  people! 


Q. — What  was  the  chief  feature  of 
German  advance  before  the 
war? 

A. — The  systematic  and  wholesale  ap- 
plication of  scientific  research  to  every 
industrial  operation  from  coal  mining  to 
toy-making.  Since  the  Franco-Prussian 
War,  Germany  has  made  industrial  science 
(or  scientific  industry)  the  most  impor- 
tant part  of  her  whole  structure.  For 
more  than  a  generation  it  has  not  been 
the  "shop-foreman"  or  the  "superintend- 
ent" who  played  the  big  part  in  her  in- 
dustrial establishments.  It  has  been  the 
chemist,  the  analyst,  the  "Herr  Profes- 
sor" (of  everything  from  mathematics  to 
astronomy),  whose  ability  guided  the  great 
factories  and  the  great  operations  of  com- 


Q. — With  whom  did  Germany  do 
the  biggest  business  during 
peace? 

A. — In  1913  and  1912  she  did  her  big- 
gest all-round  business,  counting  both  ex- 
ports and  imports,  with  the  United  States 
and  Russia.  Great  Britain  was  a  close 
third.  Other  countries  with  which  she 
did  a  major  business  were  France,  Italy, 
Holland,  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  Ar- 
gentina, British  India,  Australia,  Brazil, 
and  Chile.  Her  trade  with  British  West 
Africa  and  Egypt  had  been  very  large  in 
1912,  but  it  had  fallen  away  astonishingly 
in  1913. 

Q. — What  does  Germany  export 
mostly? 

A. — Her  exports  in  1913  were,  in  the 
order  of  their  value:  machinery,  iron 
manufactures,  coal,  cotton  goods,  wool- 
lens, sugar  (beet),  paper  and  paper  goods, 
furs,  silk  goods,  coke,  aniline  dyes,  rye, 
clothing,  copper  goods,  leather  goods, 
toys,  wheat,  books,  rails  and  sleepers,  in- 
digo, chinaware,  electric  lamps  and  tele- 
graph cable. 

Q. — What  does  Germany  need  to 
import? 

A. — In  1913  she  imported  raw  cotton, 
wheat,  raw  wool,  barley,  copper,  skins  and 
hides,  iron  ore,  coffee,  coal,  eggs,  furs, 
nitrate,  raw  silk,  bran,  rubber,  lard,  to- 
bacco, linseed,  butter,  oil-cake,  horses, 
rice,  maize  and  rye. 


206 


Germany  (Industrial  Structure) 


207 


Q. — Why  do  we  hear  so  much  of 
the  German  dye  industry? 

A. — Partly  because  dyes  are  one  of  the 
very  big  articles  of  commerce.  The  an- 
cient city  of  Tyre,  mentioned  in  the  Bible 
for  its  grandeur,  owed  much  of  its  wealth 
to  its  dye — the  still  famous  Tyrian  pur- 
ple, which  was  obtained  from  a  sea-slug. 
There  is  hardly  an  article  of  manufacture 
that  does  not  need  at  least  a  little  color 
on  it  somewhere ;  and  the  huge  textile  in- 
dustries depend  on  coloring  matter  as 
much  as  they  do  on  the  original  raw 
materials  of  wool  and  cotton.  It  is  true 
that  if  the  world  came  to  a  sharp  pinch, 
we  could  use  textiles  as  they  come  from 
the  looms — but  a  great  part  of  the  world's 
beauty  and  its  industrial  art  would  van- 
ish with  the  vanishing  of  dyes. 

Q. — Did    Germany    have    natural 
sources  of  dyes? 

A. — Germany  had  within  her  boundaries 
practically  no  natural  sources  of  dyes. 
Indigo,  the  leading  blue  dye  of  the  world, 
was  made  from  a  plant  raised  in  India. 
Red  came  largely  from  the  cochineal  in- 
sect of  Mexico  and  Africa.  The  other 
colors  came  from  ores,  earths  and  plants 
scattered  over  the  world. 

Q. — How  does   Germany  produce 
dyes? 

A. — She  makes  them.  Instead  of  ex- 
tracting them  from  plants  and  color-bear- 
ing ores,  she  makes  a  wholly  artificial 
thing.  The  foundation  for  this  artificial 
dye  is  coal-tar,  and  this,  again,  is  a  by- 
product of  other  industries. 

Q. — How    did    Germany    discover 
the  dye-making  method? 

A. — At  about  the  time  of  the  making  of 
the  German  Empire,  German  science  had 
begun  to  turn  itself  to  industrial  prob- 
lems. While  other  nations'  students  still 
were  practicing  science  as  a  thing  apart 
from  which  industry  and  other  fields 
might  profit  if  they  would,  the  German 
scientists  developed  a  great  and  unique 
field  of  their  own.  One  of  the  problems 
was  the  utilization  of  the  huge  percentage 
of  waste  that  occurs  when  coal  is  used  for 
fuel.  That  is  how  the  Germans  learned 
so  much  about  coal-tar — the  former  waste, 
which  now  produces  everything  from 
drugs  and  dyes  to  explosives. 

Q. — What  is  a  by-product? 

A. — A  by-product  is  a  product  made 
"on  the  side"  during  a  process  that  is  in- 


tended primarily  to  produce  something 
else.  Thus,  sawdust  is  a  by-product 
(purely  accidental)  from  sawing  planks, 
etc.  Dripping  is  a  by-product  from  fry- 
ing bacon.  For  a  long  time  all  the  varied 
by-products  of  industry  were  utilized  only 
as  they  happened — that  is,  nobody  seems 
to  have  thought  that  they  might  be  worth 
as  much  as,  or  perhaps  more  than,  the 
main  product.  Even  the  most  advanced 
industrial  men  did  little  except  to  save 
all  the  by-product  possible.  Hardly  any- 
body went  in  heavily  to  expand  by-prod- 
ucts. To-day,  however,  we  know  that  the 
by-product  is  one  of  the  monumental 
facts  in  modern  industry,  and  that  in 
the  coming  years  it  may  well  be  possible 
that  no  industry,  however  big  and  rich, 
will  be  able  to  stand  unless  it  is  buttressed 
•all  around  with  a  system  of  intense  by- 
product utilization. 

Q. — What  was  the  first  great  Ger- 
man dye  discovery? 

A. — It  was  hardly  a  discovery,  unless 
you  apply  the  word  "discovery"  to  a  work 
of  almost  twenty  years  of  patient,  in- 
cessant search  for  a  certain  method  to 
do  a  certain  thing.  The  first  big  German 
dye-discovery  or  invention  was  the  way 
to  make  indigo — that  is,  to  make  "syn- 
thetically" a  dye  that,  up  to  that  time, 
had  been  of  purely  vegetable  origin.  One 
of  the  big  German  industrial  firms  in  the 
southern  part  of  Germany  where  indus- 
try and  technical  science  first  began  their 
partnership,  had  kept  not  one,  but  a  whole 
corps  of  chemists  at  work  on  the  prob- 
lem before  it  was  solved.  It  is  recorded 
that  the  cost  to  that  concern  was  $3,750,- 
ooo  before  the  way  was  found;  but  it 
paid.  The  first  man  to  produce  a  syn- 
thetic indigo  was  Professor  von  Bayer; 
but  the  cost  of  the  product  by  his  proc- 
ess was  pretty  high,  and  it  was  not  until 
other  processes  were  perfected  that  the 
dye  industry  sprang  into  a  magnitude 
that  amazed  Germany. 

Q. — Did  Germany's  dye-making  af- 
fect other  nations? 

A. — The  very  first  dye  that  was  made 
by  a  German  struck  a  sharp  blow  at  Eng- 
land. In  a  way,  it  is  correct  to  say  that 
it  was  the  invention  of  synthetic  indigo 
that  laid  a  foundation  for  the  present 
war,  in  so  far  as  the  commercial  feuds 
between  England  and  Germany  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  war.  The  production 
of  synthetic  indigo  instantly  struck  and 
broke  down  one  of  England's  sources  of 
Indian  wealth. 


208 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — How  did  indigo  help  to  cause 
war? 

A. — England,  through  her  ownership  of 
India,  had  a  practical  monopoly  of  the 
world's  supply  of  this  blue,  for  almost  all 
of  it  came  from  immense  British  plan- 
tations in  the  Indian  province  of  Bengal. 
In  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury the  term  "indigo  planter"  was 
synonymous  with  "nabob."  The  British 
planters  in  one  district  alone  (North  Be- 
har)  drew  from  this  plant  incomes  that 
aggregated  $5,000,000  a  year  in  a  coun- 
try where  the  laborers'  monthly  wages 
were  then  counted  actually  by  pennies. 
The  area  under  cultivation  throughout 
Bengal  was  enormous,  and,  as  the  supply 
of  labor  was  equally  unlimited,  a  golden 
flood  poured  in  on  the  planters  and  into 
the  United  Kingdom.  To-day  the  indigo 
fields  have  shrunk  to  380,000  acres,  and 
the  income  is  only  $1,950,000  for  all  In- 
dia— a  tiny  bit  more  than  $5  an  acre. 

Q. — How  is  synthetic  indigo  made? 

A. — The  starting  point  is  naphthalene. 
After  intricate  processes,  there  is  pro- 
duced a  substance  known  as  indigotine. 
This  product  again  must  pass  through 
long  chemical  processes  before  the  paste 
or  powder  is  obtained  for  the  market. 

Q. — What  is  natural  indigo? 

A. — It  is  a  plant  that  grows  from  3 
to  5  feet  high,  doing  best  in  India  and 
Java.  Its  name  is  Indigofera  Sumatrana. 
It  contains  the  coloring  matter,  which  is 
made  into  the  blue  dye  known  as  "indigo," 
and  it  furnishes  two  crops  a  year. 

Q. — Was  the  German  dye  industry 
really  overwhelmingly  import- 
ant? 

A. — The  dye  monopoly  before  the  war 
gave  Germany  an  export  trade  in  fine 
chemicals  of  $487,500,000.  In  addition,  it 
gave  her  a  practically  complete  monopoly 
in  the  output  of  certain  explosive  gases, 
photographic  chemicals,  drugs,  and  sources 
of  power  derived  from  splitting  up  pe- 
troleum and  gas-tar  products. 

Of  the  dye  values,  synthetic  indigo 
seems  to  represent  about  40  per  cent  by 
itself — an  indication  of  the  importance  of 
this  initial  success  in  German  by-product 
extraction. 

Q. — What  other  dyes  have  Ger- 
mans discovered? 

A. — The  most  notable  was  alizarin  red, 
formerly  made  from  the  madder  root. 
Two  German  chemists  made  it  from  coal- 


tar  in  1869.  This  date  is  of  historical  in- 
terest, for  it  was  the  first  instance  of  the 
artificial  production  of  a  vegetable  dye- 
stuff.  It  was  an  Englishman,  however, 
Sir  \V.  H.  Perkin,  who  prepared  the  first 
aniline  dye  in  1856.  He  produced  a 
mauve  coloring  matter,  but  this  was  a 
quite  new  product  and  did  not  replace  any 
vegetable  dye.  It  is  interesting  to  know 
that  the  bright  red  trousers  which  early 
in  the  war  made  the  French  so  conspicu- 
ous a  target  for  German  bullets,  could 
no  longer  be  made,  as  the  alizarin  dye 
which  was  used  for  them  was  a  German 
monopoly.  Before  the  Germans  succeed- 
ed in  making  it,  the  dye  was  a  French 
monopoly,  but  since  then  the  cultivation 
of  the  madder  root  in  France  has  ceased 
entirely. 

Q. — Has     Germany     accumulated 
great  stores  of  dyestuffs? 

A. — The  British  textile  journals  appear 
to  doubt  it,  and  it  is  difficult  to  know  the 
actual  position.  The  former  United 
States  Consul  at  Breslau  informed  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Philadelphia  hosiery  manufac- 
turers that  dyestuffs  were  one  of  three 
commodities  which  were  being  held  in 
surplus  in  Germany.  The  others  were 
sulphuric  acid  and  Portland  cement. 

We  must  remember  that  the  manufac- 
ture of  explosives  is  a  part  of  the  coal- 
tar  industries  of  Germany,  and  that  in 
their  thrift  they  probably  are  missing  no 
opportunity  for  storing  by-products. 

Q.— Did    not    the    "Deutschland" 
bring  us  dye  during  war? 

A. — Yes.  The  submarine  freight  vessel 
Deutschland  brought  about  700  tons — an 
insignificant  amount  as  compared  with  our 
annual  consumption  of  about  35,000  tons, 
but  an  eagerly  welcomed  shipment  because 
of  the  intense  stringency  in  dyes  from 
which  America  was  then  suffering.  The 
price  paid  was  so  high  that  it  is  said  the 
whole  cost  of  the  Deutschland  was  de- 
frayed by  the  profit  made  from  this  one 
trip. 

Q. — Did  natural  indigo  get  a  mar- 
ket again  when  war  occurred? 

A. — Apparently  it  did  not  recover  very 
much  of  a  place.  It  was  reported  in 
March,  1918,  that  the  natural  indigo  stock 
taken  over  by  the  British  Government  at 
the  beginning  of  war  had  been  sold;  and 
the  figures  showed  that  the  total  for  the 
three  years  of  war  had  been  only  267 
tons,  which  cost  the  government  $1,760,- 
ooo.  It  was  taken  over  because  it  had  been 


Germany  (Industrial  Structure} 


209 


feared  that,  owing  to  the  inevitable  short- 
age of  synthetic  indigo,  the  natural  indigo 
might  get  into  the  hands  of  a  small  group. 
One  hundred  tons  were  sold  to  the  French 
Government,  and  the  remainder  gradually 
disposed  of  to  the  domestic  trade,  both 
for  home  consumption  and  for  export. 
The  accounts  show  a  profit  of  $17,300. 

Q. — Did    the    English    make    syn- 
thetic indigo? 

A. — The  production  of  synthetic  dye- 
stuffs  in  Great  Britain  was  reported  in 
1918  as  three  times  as  large  as  before 
the  war,  so  that  prices  dropped  in  1917. 

Q. — Has    Germany    increased    her 
coal  mining? 

A. — The  coal  production  of  the  coun- 
try— including  lignite — rose  from  76,200,- 
ooo  tons  in  1887  to  259,400,000  tons  in 
1912.  The  gain  of  240  per  cent  is  equaled 
by  no  other  country  except  the  United 
States. 

Q. — Did    Germany    aid    her    steel 

manufacturers  ? 

A. — The  steel  industry,  by  sheer  virtue 
of  its  overwhelming,  absolutely  vital,  ne- 
cessity to  the  empire  at  war,  became  an 
object  of  governmental  solicitude  as  soon 
as  the  struggle  began.  It  does  not  appear 
that  any  particular  laws  were  passed  to 
grant  government  funds  to  the  industry 
or  otherwise  to  give  official  financial  as- 
sistance ;  but  the  huge  government  orders 
had  the  same  effect. 

Just  what  laws  were  passed,  or  what 
regulations  were  made,  to  regulate  the 
relations  between  the  steel  industries  and 
the  public  is  not  clear.  So  far  as  labor 
is  concerned,  it  is  known  that  in  the  first 
three  years  of  the  war  the  German  iron 
and  steel  industry  subscribed  about  350 
millions  of  marks  ($83,000,000)  to  relief 
work 

Q. — Have  steel-workers'  wages  ad- 
vanced? 

A.— That  wages  have  been  advanced 
heavily  is  known.  Government  action  in 
regard  to  wages,  which  affected  many  in- 
dustries, appears  to  have  affected  the  steel 
industry^  most  heavily,  perhaps  because 
of  the  big  number  of  men  they  employed. 
The  steel  manufacturers  have  expressed 
the  view  several  times  at  conferences  that 
wages  had  advanced  to  a  point  where  they 
would  handicap  Germany's  price-compe- 
tition with  other  nations  after  war.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  steel-makers'  profits 


have  been  enormous  (as  in  every  country), 
and,  in  addition,  the  war-profits  tax  has 
been  lighter  than  it  has  been  in  Great 
Britain. 

Q. — Has  Germany  built  more  rail- 
roads than  other  nations? 

A. — Not  in  mileage,  as  compared  with 
the  United  States,  but  in  proportion  she 
did  nearly  what  we  did  from  1800  to  1910. 
In  that  period  we  increased  our  railroad 
mileage  44  per  cent,  and  Germany  in- 
creased her  mileage  42  per  cent. 

Q. — What  does  Germany  save  by 
her  economies  and  scientific 
thrift? 

A. — One  could  only  guess.  Not  even 
the  German  statisticians,  meticulous  as 
they  are,  have  ventured  to  attempt  any 
specific  figures.  But  we  know,  in  large 
figures,  how  coal  and  by-products  are 
wasted  by  the  other  large  industrial  na- 
tions, and  we  know  that  a  large  percent- 
age of  such  waste  has  been  eliminated  in 
Germany.  This  alone  enables  us  to  make 
a  large  general  estimate  that  the  German 
industrial  economies  amount  to  probably 
more  than  a  thousand  million  dollars  a 
year.  Lord  Haldane  once  said,  in  a  speech 
on  England's  technical  needs,  that  if 
English  technicians  would  devote  them- 
selves to  economies  similar  to  the  Ger- 
man, their  work  would  save  the  United 
Kingdom  at  least  2l/2  billions  of  dollars  a 
year — and  Lord  Haldane  is  not  an  ordi- 
nary orator,  but  a  speaker  of  scientific 
precision. 

Q. — How  do  the  Germans  keep 
their  economical  processes  se- 
cret? 

A. — They  do  not — that  is  the  most  ex- 
traordinary part  of  the  story  of  their 
competition  with  other  nations.  Of 
course,  they  have  thousands  on  thousands 
of  trade-secrets — patents,  etc.,  like  the  rest 
of  us.  But  their  big  industrial  econo- 
mies, such  as  the  utilizations  of  coal  and 
coke,  the  extraction  of  every  possible  by- 
product, the  attainment  of  the  utmost  val- 
ues from  ore,  etc.,  are  not  secrets  at  all. 
The  whole  world  knows  exactly  what  they 
are,  or  almost  exactly.  In  fact,  every 
technical  expert  in  the  world  has  for  years 
subscribed,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  Ger- 
man technical  publications  if  he  meant 
seriously  to  keep  himself  posted  thor- 
oughly in  his  own  field.  The  German 
and  the  French  technical  publications  have 
run  a  close  race  in  excellence  for  many 
years.  A  great  part  of  the  world's  knowl- 


2IO 


Questions  and  Answers 


edge  would  be  non-existent  except  for 
them.  Indeed,  a  big  part  of  the  scientific 
news  that  comes  to  the  English  and  Amer- 
ican public  is  based  on  previous  publi- 
cations in  the  technical  press  of  these  two 
nations. 

Q. — Then  why  did  other  nations 
not  use  these  economies? 

A. — For  very  many  reasons.  One  was 
the  human  opposition  to  great  and  sud- 
den changes.  Another  was  the  fact  that 
the  German  industries,  being  largely  new, 
were  started  right,  while  the  industries 
of  older  nations  were  reared  on  older 
foundations — and  it  was  no  light  task 
to  reform,  remodel  or  perhaps  destroy  and 
reconstruct  these  mammoth  industrial 
organizations  and  plants.  For  instance, 
our  steel  industry  is  based  on  a  method 
entirely  different  from  that  of  the  Ger- 
mans. It  is  true  that  by  their  method 
they  get  not  only  steel,  but  they  get  coke 
and  all  its  innumerable  by-products  from 
explosives  to  saccharine.  But  to  rebuild 
our  enormous  steel  industry  would  entail 
such  huge  losses  that  all  the  profits  to  be 
made  could  not  repay  them  for  many, 
many  years.  Naturally,  business  men  do 
not  feel  like  undertaking  such  tasks,  but 
prefer  to  go  on  as  they  are.  The  war, 
however,  has  made  some  of  the  very 
great  changes  actually  inevitable,  and  it 
is  a  cheering  thing  to  know  that  at  least 
part  of  the  American  billions  is  going 
into  the  construction  of  just  such  indus- 
trial plants  as  Germany  has. 

Q. — Did  German  ammunition  man- 
ufacturers profit  or  lose  during 
war? 

A. — The  Krupp  company  reported  for 
the  fiscal  year  1917  gross  profits  of  $28,- 
725,000,  against  $28,340,000  in  1916,  and 
$32,065,000  in  1915.  Ne^  profit  was  $10,- 
245,000,  against  $12,41 5)000  and  $21,615,- 
ooo  in  the  two  preceding  years,  and  the 
dividend  10  per  cent,  against  12  in  the 
three  preceding  years,  and  14  in  1913. 
The  trebling  of  tax  payments  since  1915 
caused  the  heavy  drop  in  net  receipts. 

Q. — Arc  the  Krupp  works  near 
the  Rhine? 

A. — Yes.  The  city  of  Essen,  which  is 
largely  Krupp,  is  on  the  Rhine  toward  the 
Dutch  border.  The  Rhine-Ruhr  district, 
where  this  city  is  situated,  is  one  of  the 
world's  most  remarkable  manufacturing 
districts.  Within  a  few  miles  of  each 
other  are  the  large  cities  of  Essen  (with 
the  Krupp  gun  works),  Elberfield-Bar- 


men,  Diisseldorf,  Duisburg,  Dortmund, 
Remscheid  and  Miilheim.  While  iron  is 
the  principal  industry,  scarcely  anything 
can  be  named  which  is  not  made  within 
this  twenty-five  mile  radius. 

Q. — What  are  Germany's  other  in- 
dustrial centers  ? 

A. — The  other  great  manufacturing  dis- 
tricts are  in  Bavaria,  which  is  famous  for 
its  toys,  and  Saxony  for  its  iron  furnaces. 
The  finest  coal  fields  are  in  Lorraine, 
along  the  river  Ruhr,  and  in  Silesia. 

Q. — How  and  when  did  Germany 
become  an  iron  producer? 

A. — She  first  became  powerful  as  a  fac- 
tor in  the  iron  industry  by  her  applica- 
tion of  new  and  revolutionary  principles 
to  the  smelting  ovens.  At  the  same  time 
she  so  improved  her  capacity  that  instead 
of  exporting  iron  ore  she  had  to  buy  it. 

The  excess  of  iron  ore  exports  of  more 
than  7OO,c>oo  tons  for  1887  was  converted 
by  1912  into  an  excess  of  imports  by 
nearly  10,000,000  tons.  During  the  same 
period  pig-iron  production  rose  from 
4,024,000  to  17,853,000  tons.  From  1886 
to  1910,  Germany  increased  its  steel  pro- 
duction 1,335  per  cent,  the  United  States 
910  per  cent  and  England  154  per  cent. 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  find  supplies 
in  Northern  France  worth 
$2,000,000,000? 

A. — It  is  impossible  to  tell.  That  is  the 
figure  the  Germans  published.  Whether 
it  is  correct  or  not  has  not  been  stated  by 
the  Belgian  and  French  authorities.  It  is 
admitted  that  vast  stores  of  cotton  and 
woollen  goods,  raw  cotton  and  wool,  and 
so  forth,  were  left  undestroyed  in  the 
hasty  retirement  to  the  Marne,  in  the  great 
industrial  districts  about  Lille. 

Q. — Have  the  Germans  found  sub- 
stitutes for  wool  and  cotton? 

A. — They  claim  to  have  done  so.  Ap- 
parently, they  must  be  using  something, 
as  all  supplies  of  cotton  they  can  get  from 
Asia  Minor  would  certainly  be  used  in 
the  making  of  explosives,  and  although 
they  will,  no  doubt,  have  obtained  consid- 
erable quantities  of  wool  from  Bulgaria 
and  Turkey,  these  countries  could  have 
sent  them  only  a  minimum  of  the  amount 
of  wool  they  formerly  obtained  from 
abroad. 

One  plant  from  which  a  fiber  is  ob- 
tained, which  is  being  used  by  spinners 
and  weavers  in  Germany  instead  of  cot- 


Germany  (Industrial  Structure} 


'211 


ton,  wool  and  jute,  is  called  the  typha, 
and  ^is  a  sort  of  cat-tail  that  grows  ex- 
tensively in  marshes.  The  1916  crop  was 
estimated  as  high  as  six  million  tons,  and 
the  yield  of  the  finished  product  is  10 
per  cent  of  this.  Leading  German  mer- 
chants and  bankers  have  subscribed  capi- 
tal for  the  manufacture  of  the  new  cloth. 
One  favorable  quality  of  the  typha  is  that 
it  flourishes  on  land  too  poor  for  the 
growing  of  cereal  crops.  It  can  be  har- 
vested from  June  until  the  frosts  come. 

Q. — Could  an  Australian  wool  em- 
bargo strangle  the  German 
textile  industry? 

A. — Plenty  of  wool  is  obtainable  from 
other  countries.  Even  merino  can  be  got 
from  Uruguay  in  large  quantities.^  The 
following  list  of  the  wool  production  of 
the  countries  then  neutral  was  prepared 
by  American  experts,  and  published  in 
Boston  in  1914: 

Europe —  Lbs. 

Spain  52,000,000 

Greece  14,000,000 

Asia — 

China    50,000,000 

Persia    12,000,000 

America — 

United  States   296,000,000 

Mexico 7,000,000 

Argentine  326,000,000 

Uruguay 157,000,000 

Chile    29,000,000 

Peru 10,000,000 

Central    America   and 

Brazil 2,000,000 


Total   955,000,000 

The  Central  Powers,  Bulgaria  and  Tur- 
key, together  produce  248,000,000  Ibs.  The 
Australian  production  in  1914-15  was  642,- 
000,000  Ibs. 

Q. — Can  the  Germans  really  make 
synthetic  rubber? 

A. — It  is  not  impossible.  Every  chem- 
ist knows  that  synthetic  rubber  can  be 
made.  The  chief  trouble  about  it  is  that 
it  costs  more  than  natural  rubber.  In 
Germany's  war-emergency,  that  objection 
may  have  become  minor. 

Rubber  is  merely  the  sap  of  a  certain 
kind  of  tree.  One  way  known  to  make 
synthetic  rubber  is  from  starch,  best  ob- 
tained from  potatoes,  but  it  requires  a 
Jot. 

An  annual  production  of  10,000,000 
pounds  of  rubber  might  require  500,000,- 
ooo  pounds  of  potatoes.  The  starch  is 


converted  into  acetone  and  butyl  alcohol. 
A  process  known  to  have  been  at  least 
partially  developed  by  a  German  company 
is  based  on  the  use  of  acetone.  This  is 
obtainable  from  calcium  carbide,  which 
is  very  cheap,  indeed. 

Q. — When  did  Germany  become  a 
big  machinery  maker? 

A. — She  began  to  make  strides  about 
1882.  The  number  of  persons  employed 
in  the  machine  industry  increased  229  per 
cent  from  1882  till  1907,  and  more  than 
loo  per  cent  was  recorded  in  mining  and 
smelting,  earths  and  stone,  chemicals, 
paper,  printing,  and  building.  From  1895- 
1907  only  four  industries — textiles,  wood- 
working, foods  and  beverages,  and  print- 
ing— failed  to  increase  their  power  more 
than  loo  per  cent,  while  the  building  trade 
gained  308  and  machinery  557  per  cent, 
and  other  industries  between  100  and  200 
per  cent. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  Germany  has  no 
real  seaports? 

A. — She  has  no  great  port  directly  on 
the  sea.  Hamburg  (with  maritime  busi- 
ness ranking  next  only  to  New  York, 
Liverpool  and  London)  and  Bremen,  with 
their  outlying  stations  of  Wilhelmshaven, 
Bremerhaven  and  Cuxhaven,  are  the  only 
ports  west  of  the  .peninsula  of  Schleswig- 
Holstein,  and  so  accessible  to  large  trans- 
atlantic traffic,  and  these  are  both  some 
distance  from  the  sea,  Hamburg  being  on 
the  river  Elbe  and  Bremen  on  the  river 
Weser. 

Q. — Can   Germany  not  reach   the 
sea  through  the  Rhine? 

A. — To  use  her  great  river,  the  Rhine, 
Germany  must  go  through  Holland 
(where  the  name  changes  to  the  Waal) 
to  Breach  the  North  Sea.  Much  of  her 
shipping  is  done  through  the  foreign  ports 
of  Antwerp  and  Amsterdam. 

But  where  nature  has  denied  them,  the 
Germans  have  supplied  the  want  by  in- 
genuity. The  Rhine  has  been  dredged 
one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  from  its 
mouth  for  navigation  by  vessels  of  fair 
sea-going  capacity.  The  whole  of  Ger- 
many is  cut  by  a  network  of  canals,  the 
most  famous  of  which  is  the  Kaiser  Wil- 
helm  Canal  from  Kiel  on  the  Baltic  to 
Brunsbiittel  at  the  mouth  of  the  Elbe  on 
the  North  Sea. 

Q. — How    did    Germany's    marine 
grow? 

A. — In  the  25  years  from  1888  to  1913, 
Germany's  merchant  marine  grew  from 


212 


Questions  and  Answers 


470,000  net  registered  tonnage  to  2,655,- 
ooo.  Her  import  trade  grew  from  740 
million  (dollars)  to  2  billion  610  million, 
and  her  exports  grew  from  747  million 
to  2  billion  165  million.  Germany's  total 
foreign  trade  gained  214  per  cent,  against 
173  per  cent  gained  by  the  United  States, 
113  per  cent  by  Great  Britain,  and  98  per 
cent  by  France. 

Q. — Was  the  German  marine  en- 
tirely prostrated  by  the  war? 

A. — Practically  so.  There  remained, 
however,  a  pretty  lively  sea-trade  through 
the  Baltic  with  Sweden,  and  the  war- 
profits  of  the  ships  so  engaged  were  high. 
Thus,  at  an  auction  sale  in  Rostock,  a 
German  Baltic  port,  a  steamship  was  sold 
in  1917  for  $637,500.  Its  cost  when  built 
in  1908  had  been  $122,500.  Its  earnings 
during  1912  had  been  12  per  cent,  and 
during  1913  14  per  cent.  In  1914  it  earned 
nothing.  ^  In  1915  it  earned  5  per  cent. 
In  1916  its  earnings  were  60  per  cent. 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  recover  their 
merchant  vessels  in  Antwerp? 

A. — Yes.  When  the  war  began,  37  Ger- 
man vessels  were  lying  in  Antwerp,  and, 
of  course,  could  not  get  out.  It  has  been 
one  of  the  mysteries  of  the  war  why 
either  the  Belgians  or  the  British  did  not 
remove  these  ships.  It  may  be  that  they 
delayed  because  of  possible  complications 
with  Holland,  since  to  send  the  ships  to 
England  would  have  made  necessary  pas- 
sage through  the  Dutch-controlled  mouth 
of  the  Scheldt.  At  any  rate,  the  ships 
were  left  in  Antwerp,  and  when  the  Ger- 
mans captured  the  city  they  thus  recap- 
tured their  ships. 

Q. — Are  the  German  cities  as  large 
as  ours? 

A. — Germany  has  no  cities  as  large  as 
New  York  and  Chicago  in  population, 
but  Berlin,  with  2  millions,  has  a  popula- 
tion exceeded  in  America  only  by  those 
two  big  cities.  Of  cities  with  more  than 
300,000  people,  we  have  i8t  while  Ger- 
many has  II.  Of  cities  with  less  than 
300,000  and  more  than  100,000,  we  have 
46,  against  Germany's  31.  When  it  comes 
to  cities  next  in  rank  of  more  than  50,- 
ooo,  we  have  51  against  Germany's  38. 

Q. — What  are  the  big  cities  of  Ger- 
many? 

A. — Berlin,  Hamburg,  Munich,  Leipzig, 
Dresden,  Cologne,  Breslau,  Frankfort, 


Dusseldorf,  Nuremberg,  Charlottenburg 
and  Hanover  are  the  cities  with  more  than 
300,000  people. 

Q. — Are  most  of  the  big  cities  in 
Prussia? 

A. — Of  the  12  largest  cities,  7  are 
in  Prussia.  The  others  are  in  Saxony 
and  Bavaria.  Of  the  whole  list  of  Ger- 
man cities  ranking  over  50,000,  Prussia  has 
53  as  against  32  in  the  rest  of  Germany. 

Q. — Did  Germany  get  oil  from 
Roumania? 

A. — In  the  months  of  September  to 
December,  1916,  German  armies  conquered 
a  part  of  Roumania,  and  occupied  the  city 
of  Ploechti  in  the  Prahova  Valley,  the 
center  of  one  of  the  richest  oil-fields  in 
Europe.  The  oil-wells,  however,  were 
burned,  and  the  oil-reservoirs  destroyed. 
From  time  to  time  neutral  newspapers 
have  reported  the  restoration  of  the  Rou- 
manian oil  industry  to  normal  conditions. 

Q. — How  much  oil  might  Germany 
get  from  Roumania's  wells? 

A. — In  1913  Roumania  exported  pe- 
troleum and  so  forth,  to  the  value  of  26 
million  dollars.  It  is  known,  Rowever, 
that  while  some  of  the  wells  were  worked 
with  thorough  science  and  with  the  best 
of  modern  machinery,  a  large  part  of 
the  possible  oil-territory  remained  unde- 
veloped or  practically  so. 

Q. — How  much  oil  might  Germany 
get  from  Batoum  and  the  other 
Black  Sea  regions? 

A. — The  Baku  district  alone  produced  7 
million  tons  of  oil  in  1915,  the  last  year 
for  which  there  have  been  accurate  fig- 


Q. — Has    Germany    much    forest 
land? 

A. — Germany  has  an  amazing  area  of 
forest  land,  considering  the  density  of 
her  population.  The  whole  forest  area 
is  reckoned  at  34^  million  acres,  divided 
into  government  forests,  communal  for- 
ests, private  forests  and  forests  maintained 
by  societies.  It  is  a  tiny  amount  com- 
pared with  the  550  million  acres  of  Amer- 
ican forest;  but  Germany  manages  to  get 
a  big  income  from  her  small  area,  to  cut 
it  freely  and  still  conserve  it  and  even  im- 
prove it.  Intensive  forestry  is  the  secret. 


Germany  (Industrial  Structure} 


213 


Q. — Have  many  Germans  emigrat- 
ed lately? 

A. — Hardly  any.  The  flood  of  German 
emigration,  very  great  at  one  time, 
stopped  with  extraordinary  abruptness. 
In  the  last  few  years  it  has  fallen  away 
to  almost  nothing,  and  even  the  small 
emigration  that  there  was  showed  a  steady 
diminution  annually.  In  1913,  the  year 
before  the  war,  only  26,000  people  emi- 
grated from  all  Germany. 

Q. — Where  did  most  of  the  emi- 
grants go  from? 

A. — The  largest  number  went  from 
Prussia,  which  lost  '13,000  people.  Ba- 
varia lost  only  2,000. 

Q. — How    many    left    Alsace-Lor- 
raine ? 

A. — Only  517  emigrated  from  that  prov- 
ince. 

Q. — When  did  German  emigration 
decrease? 

A. — In  the  decade  1881-90,  there  were 
1,342,000  German  emigrants,  as  against  a 
total  birth  excess  of  5,500,000;  in  the  fol- 
lowing decade  there  were  still  528,000  emi- 
grants to  7,300,000  net  births;  but  in  the 
decade  1901-10,  when  the  birth  excess  rose 
to  8,670,000  the  number  of  emigrants  sank 
to  220,000,  or  22,000  a  year. 


Q. — Who  said  German  technical 
schools  were  more  dangerous 
than  Krupp  ? 

A. — You  evidently  refer  to  a  statement 
once  made  in  the  House  of  Lords  by 
Lord  Haldane.  He  did  not  phrase  it  ex- 
actly that  way.  He  was  discussing  Eng- 
lish educational  systems,  and,  during  the 
course  of  his  speech,  he  said  that  while 
there  were  only  1,500  trained  chemists  in 
England,  four  German  chemical  firms  em- 
ployed 1,000  alone.  These  firms  had 
played  havoc  with  British  trade,  he  said, 
and  added  that  more  than  half  the  boys 
and  girls  in  England  get  no  education  at 
all  after  they  reach  13,  and  only  250,000  go 
to  school  after  14  years  of  age.  Lord 
Haldane  said  that  5,350,000  boys  and  girls 
in  England  and  Wales  between  16  and  25 
get  no  education  at  all,  only  93,000  get  a 
full-time  course,  and  390,000  a  part-time 
course  at  evening  schools. 

Q. — Did  Germany  pay  her  war 
costs  by  taxation? 

A. — Germany  has  raised  little  money  in 
the  way  of  additional  war-taxes.  Instead, 
she  has  floated  two  huge  loans  each  year, 
one  in  March  and  one  in  September.  It 
is  now  recognized  that  nations  consume  in 
war  not  money  but  goods,  and  that  no  na- 
tion need  stop,  fighting  for  financial  rea- 
sons alone.  Germany's  real  impoverish- 
ment is  in  her  shortage  of  men  and  of 
goods. 


GERMANY  (POLITICAL  STRUCTURE) 


Q. — What  was  the  political  situa- 
tion in  Germany  in  1918? 

A. — It  was  fairly  clear  and  rather 
sharply  outlined.  The  Pan-Germanists, 
working  largely  through  their  new  popu- 
lar party,  to  which  they  had  shrewdly 
given  the  enticing  name  of  Fatherland 
party,  were  working  on  the  line  of  de- 
manding that  the  German  people  must  be 
repaid  for  their  sacrifice  of  blood  and 
treasure — the  good  old  formula  that  had 
been  almost  invariably  successful  through- 
out the  history  of  humanity  when  ad- 
dressed to  the  nation  whose  military 
power  had  proved  itself.  Opposed  to  this 
very  solid  mass  were  many  parties.  They 
were  tied  together  by  the  one  desire  for 
a  just  and  equitable  peace,  but,  other- 
wise, they  had  little  or  no  connecting 
bonds.  For  instance,  the  Socialists,  who 
led  in  opposition  to  the  Pan-Germanists, 
remained  distinctly  opposed  in  all  gen- 
eral political  and  social  matters  to  the  va- 
rious other  parties  that  were  in  agree- 
ment with  them  on  the  big  war-issues, 
especially  on  the  dictum  of  "no  annex- 
ations." 

Q. — Was   there   any   similar   divi- 
sion in  other  countries? 

A. — Yes.  Speaking  very  broadly,  by 
the  beginning  of  1918  there  had  come  a 
pretty  clear  division  in  all  countries,  both 
Allies  and  Central  Powers,  between  a 
great  body  of  public  opinion  that  still  felt 
that  only  by  successful  war  could  a  just 
and  lasting  peace  be  won,  and  another 
smaller  body  of  public  opinion  which  took 
a  position  exactly  the  reverse — that  the 
time  had  arrived  when  there  was  a  strong 
possibility  of  approximating  a  just  peace, 
and  establishing  certain  international 
ideals,  by  negotiation  rather  than  by  mili- 
tary victory. 

Q. — Can  the  Kaiser  make  war? 

A. — He  cannot  declare  an  offensive  war, 
but  a  clause  in  the  constitution  provides 
that  he  can  declare  war  if  defensive.  If 
war  is  not  defensive,  he  must  have  the 
consent  of  the  Bundesrath,  or  Federal 
Council,  which  is  the  upper  house  of  the 
German  Parliament.  Under  the  Consti- 
tution the  Kaiser  can  make  treaties  of 
peace.  He  does  not  need  the  consent  of 
the  Parliament  for  any  treaties  except 
when  they  relate  to  matters  regulated  by 
imperial  legislation. 


Q. — How  did  Prussia  become  mili- 
taristic ? 

A. — As  a  result  of  being  licked  too 
often.  Prussia  (and  the  other  States  of 
Germany)  were  for  a  long  time  used  as 
a  cock-pit  for  other  peoples'  wars,  just  as 
the  Belgian  territory  always  has  been 
used.  Whenever  France  wanted  to  fight 
Russia  or  Austria,  the  road  led  through 
Wurttemberg,  Bavaria  or  Prussia.  The 
German  States  were  alternately  victims  of 
both  sides  or  allies  of  one  or  the  other. 
Some  of  the  greatest  battles  of  history 
thus  were  fought  out  on  German  terri- 
tory. At  last  Prussians  determined 
grimly  to  fight  for  themselves,  and  it  was 
under  the  inspiration  of  a  burning  zeal 
and  love  for  home  and  country  that  the 
seeds  of  militarism  were  sown.  Under 
Frederick  the  Great  the  militaristic  prin- 
ciple became  part  of  the  woof  and  warp 
of  national  life. 

Q. — Can     the     President     of     the 
United  States  make  treaties? 

A. — No.  He  can  make  treaties  only 
"by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate."  It  is  this  simple  clause  which 
has  saved  us  from  being  embroiled  in  se- 
cret diplomacy.  The  European  nations 
(not  excepting  even  democratic  England) 
have  suffered  grievously  by  permitting 
their  rulers  or  cabinets  to  make  interna- 
tional arrangements  without  the  knowl- 
edge or  advice  of  the  people's  represen- 
tatives. 

Q. — What  is  the  true  meaning  of 
the  Kaiser's  title  "War  Lord"? 

A. — In  German,  the  title  is  "Kriegs- 
Herr,"  and  "War  Lord"  is  only  a  literal 
translation  that  does  not  actually  convey 
its  meaning.  The  more  clear  translation 
is  "War  Commander."  The  title  signifies 
officially  that  whoever  is  Emperor  of 
Germany  becomes  by  virtue  of  this  office 
Supreme  Commander  of  the  Army  and 
Navy  in  war. 

Probably  few  Americans  know  that  this 
supreme  command  is  limited  by  the  words 
"in  war,"  but  this  is  true.  The  Kaiser 
has  not  the  absolute  command  over  the 
forces  of  the  entire  German  Army.  Ar- 
ticle 66  of  the  German  Constitution  pro- 
vides that  the  German  princes,  especially 
the  kings  of  Bavaria.  Wurttemberg  and 
Saxony,  are  the  chiefs  of  the  troops  be- 


214 


Germany  (Political  Structure) 


215 


longing  to  their  territory  (six  army  corps 
of  twenty-four).  They  nominate  the  of- 
ficers for  these  troops,  etc.  The  absolute 
disposition  of  the  German  Army  thus 
passes  on  to  the  Kaiser  only  in  the  mo- 
ment when  the  consent  of  the  states,  who 
with  Prussia  form  the  empire,  has  been 
obtained  for  the  declaration  of  a  war. 
This  consent  is  obtained  through  the 
German  Upper  House  or  Bundesrath, 
which  represents  the  various  States. 

Q. — What  is  the  German  people's 
attitude  toward  the  Kaiser? 

A. — With  the  exception  of  the  most 
radical  socialists,  the  German  people  hold 
their  Kaiser  in  the  highest  esteem.  It  is 
this  attitude  which  has  caused  the  Ger- 
man people  to  bear,  with  such  wonderful 
patience,  whatever  burden  the  war  has 
brought. 

Q. — Has  Germany  a  constitution? 

A. — Yes.  It  has  a  written  constitution, 
which  is,  on  the  whole,  similar  to  the 
constitution  of  most  large  nations,  defin- 
ing and  limiting  the  powers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment and  directing  the  general  method 
of  making  laws  and  enforcing  laws.  It 
went  into  effect  on  April  16,  1871. 

Q. — Can  anybody  but  a  Hohenzol- 
lern  become  Emperor? 

A. — Not  under  the  terms  of  the  Con- 
federation. When  Wilhelm  I,  King  of 
Prussia,  was  made  German  Emperor  (by 
vote  of  the  old  North  German  Confeder- 
ation Reichstag,  on  the  initiative  of  all  the 
Princes  of  Germany),  the  Imperial  dignity 
was  made  hereditary  in  the  House  of 
Hohenzollern,  and,  as  the  law  of  primo- 
geniture also  holds,  it  means  that  when 
a  Hohenzollern  dies,  his  eldest  living  son 
ascends  the  Imperial  throne. 

Q. — Does  the  old  North  German 
Federation  still  exist? 

A. — No.  This  very  loose  and  not  effec- 
tive form  of  federation  was  replaced  by 
the  present  confederation  known  as  the 
German  Empire.  Germany  as  a  nation  is 
quite  different,  you  must  note,  from  such 
a  country  as  France.  France  is  one  single 
governmental  organization.  Germany  is  a 
union  of  States. 

Q. — Have  the  Germans  free  suf- 
frage like  other  countries? 

A. — The  national  elections  are  by  ab- 
solutely universal  manhood  suffrage  with 
the  secret  ballot  system,  and  no  voter 


heeds  any  qualification  of  property,  etc., 
but  is  entitled  to  cast  his  ballot  if  he  is 
a  citizen  of  legal  age. 

The  State  elections  are  different.  Each 
State  has  its  own  laws  for  elections  with- 
in the  State.  Prussian  election  laws  are 
especially  unequal,  and  this  was  the 
subject  of  a  bitter  political  contest  dur- 
ing the  war,  and,  indeed,  became  an  issue 
of  the  war. 

Q. — What  suffrage  have  the  other 
countries  ? 

A.— The  United  States  has  practically 
equal  suffrage,  except  in  a  few  States 
where  suffrage  is  limited  in  various  ways, 
chiefly  for  political  reasons.  France  has 
universal  suffrage.  Italy  has  almost  uni- 
versal suffrage,  but  the  people  can  elect 
only  the  members  of  the  lower  house, 
the  Senate  consisting  of  Princes  or  of 
members  appointed  by  the  King  for  life. 

Great  Britain,  in  February,  1918,  en- 
acted a  new  suffrage  law,  which  swept 
away  the  qualifications  previously  in  force, 
and  provided  universal  manhood  suffrage, 
besides  a.  new  scheme  of  distribution  on 
the  basis  of  one  member  of  Parliament 
for  every  70,000  of  the  population  in  Great 
Britain,  and  one  for  every  43,000  in  Ire- 
land. It  also  admitted  to  the  suffrage 
any  woman  of  thirty  years  or  over  who  is 
a  local  government  elector  or  the  wife 
of  one  (this  involves  six  months'  owner- 
ship or  tenancy  of  land  or  premises),  thus 
giving  the  vote  to  about  6,000,000  women. 

Q. — Do  the  Germans  elect  any  of 
their  actual  ruling  heads? 

A. — No.  The  Germans  elect  the  mem- 
bers of  their  Reichstag,  but  the  Chan- 
cellor of  the  German  Empire,  who  cor- 
responds to  Prime  Minister  in  England, 
is  appointed  by  the  Emperor,  and  is  not 
responsible  by  law  to  the  Reichstag. 

Q. — What  nations  in  the  war  elect 
their  ruling  heads? 

A.— Only  the  United  States.  The  Brit- 
ish Prime  Minister  is  appointed  by  the 
King  (though,  in  actual  practice,  the  rul- 
ing majority  in  Parliament  makes  up  its 
mind  whom  it  wants,  and  _the  King  has 
always  appointed  that  particular  person). 
The  President  of  France  is  elected  by 
the  Senate  and  Chamber  of  Deputies.  He 
has  very  little  power,  and  the  real  ruler, 
the  Premier,  though  appointed  by  the 
President,  really  is  appointed  only  ac- 
cording to  the  wishes  of  the  party  in 
power  at  a  given  moment.  In  Italy  the 
Ministry  is  appointed  by  the  King,  usually 
in  accord  with  the  ruling  majority. 


2l6 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Is  the  German  Parliament  at 
all  like  the  U.  S.  Congress? 

A.— In  some  ways  it  is  like  Congress. 
For  instance,  the  Reichstag  (which  is 
the  lower  house  or  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, as  we  call  ours)  is  made  up  of 
elected  members  who  come  from  the  va- 
rious districts  of  Germany,  where  they 
are  locally  elected  as  our  Congressmen 
are. 

The  Bundesrath  or  Upper  House,  on 
the  other  hand,  represents  not  the  people 
of  Germany,  but  the  States  specifically, 
as  pur  Senate  was  supposed  to  do  when 
United  States  Senators  were  selected  by 
State  Legislatures  instead  of  being  elected 
by  popular  suffrage.  In  fact,  our  Sena- 
tors still  represent  States  rather  than  elec- 
tors, in  political  principle  at  least. 

Q. — How  does  the  size  of  the  Ger- 
man Parliament  compare  with 
others? 

A. — The  Bundesrath,  or  Upper  House, 
has  61  members,  as  against  96  United 
States  Senators  and  660  Peers  in  the 
British  House  of  Lords.  The  Reichstag 
has  393  members,  elected  by  popular  suf- 
frage, against  435  Congressmen  and  670 
members  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

Q. — Can  the  Kaiser  dissolve  the 
Reichstag? 

A. — Yes.  He  has  the  right  either  to 
"prorogue"  it  (that  means  to  close  its 
session  temporarily)  or  to  dissolve  it  en- 
tirely. All  that  he  needs  is  a  majority 
vote  of  the  Bundesrath.  But  he  cannot 
prorogue  the  Reichstag  indefinitely,  and 
he  cannot  go  on  without  a  Reichstag. 
If  he  prorogues  the  Reichstag,  it  can  be 
for  only  a  period  of  30  days,  unless  the 
Reichstag  itself  consents  to  a  longer  pe- 
riod. If  he  dissolves  a  Reichstag,  new 
elections  must  be  held  within  sixty  days, 
and  a  new  session  must  be  held  within 
ninety  days. 

Q. — Can  the  President  prorogue 
Congress? 

A. — No.  He  can  neither  prorogue  nor 
dissolve  it.  Congress  is  a  co-equal  body 
with  the  American  President,  and  its 
rights  are  clearly  defined  as  such  in  the 
constitution. 

Q. — How  do  the  upper  houses 
compare? 

A. — The  61  members  of  the  Bundesrath 
are  appointive,  the  governments  of  the 


various  German  States  appointing  the 
members  for  each  session.  Our  96  Sena- 
tors are  elected  by  popular  suffrage  for 
six  years.  The  66b  Peers  in  the  House  of 
Lords  hold  their  seats  by  hereditary  right, 
by  creation  of  new  Peers  by  the  King, 
and  by  virtue  of  office  as  English  arch- 
bishops and  bishops. 

Q. — Can  the  King  of  England 
prorogue  Parliament? 

A. — Yes.  Every  session  of  Parliament 
must  end  with  a  prorogation  which  issues 
from  the  King.  He  can  also  dissolve  a 
Parliament,  but  no  King  in  modern  times 
has  done  so  on  his  own  authority.  What 
the  King  does  about  Parliament  is  purely 
a  matter  of  form.  In  actual  fact,  Par- 
liament is  prorogued  when  the  majority 
party  decides  to  do  so,  and  it  is  dissolved 
when  the  majority  party's  Cabinet  has 
been  outvoted  in  Parliament  on  some 
national  measure.  An  adverse  vote  (a 
•vote  of  lack  of  confidence,  as  it  is  called) 
results  by  custom  in  a  general  election 
to  bring  in  a  new  Parliament.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  strict  law,  a  Cabinet  could  hold 
out;  but  it  could  get  no  measures  passed, 
and  it  would  antagonize  the  voters  by 
flouting  British  custom,  which  is  stronger 
than  written  law.  The  British  Constitu- 
tion really  is  largely  a  matter  of  Na- 
tional custom ;  and  the  King  acts  accord- 
ingly, proroguing  or  dissolving  Parlia- 
ment by  advice  of  the  Cabinet. 

Q. — If  the  Reichstag  refuses  to 
pass  the  Kaiser's  measures, 
what  can  he  do? 

A. — He  can  dissolve  Parliament,  and 
thus  cause  another  election.  If  the  new 
body  again  refuse  to  approve  of  his  legis- 
lation, he  can  again  dissolve  Parliament, 
and  a  second  election  would  be  held. 
Such  a  case  has  never  arisen  to  date,  but 
it  is  not  impossible.  The  Emperor  can 
declare  war  without  the  consent  of  the 
Lower  House,  just  as  can  the  King  of 
England ;  but,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the 
Ministers  are  all  his  nominees,  he  has  a 
very  great  influence  over  German  poli- 
tics while  the  King  of  England  has  very 
little  over  British  politics  in  practice, 
though  a  forceful  English  King  might 
assume  many  prerogatives  and  powers 
that  have  been  allowed  to  become  dor- 
mant merely  as  a  matter  of  custom. 

Q. — Can  the  King  of  England  con- 
trol the  House  of  Lords? 

A. — He  can  create  a  majority  for  him- 
self in  the  House  of  Lords  at  any  time 


Germany  (Political  Structure) 


217 


by  exercising  his  constitutional  preroga- 
tive of  creating  new  Peers.  He  could 
create  so  many  that  they  could  overcome 
a  vote  against  the  Crown.  This  power, 
like  other  powers  latent  under  English 
political  practice,  had  fallen  into  such 
oblivion  that  probably  most  Englishmen 
considered  it  practically  dead ;  but  it  sud- 
denly came  to  life  when  the  House  of 
Commons  made  its  great  fight  in  1910-11 
to  wrest  the  power  of  veto  from  the 
House  of  Lords.  To  force  the  House  of 
Lords  to  relinquish  this  power,  the  Cab- 
inet then  in  office  threatened  that  the 
King  would  appoint  enough  Peers  to  vote 
for  the  measure.  The  threat  was  enough. 
It  was  not  necessary  to  proceed  to  its 
execution.  The  incident  showed  what 
great  powers  still  rest  in  the  Crown — if 
the  Crown  should  ever  venture  to  use 
them. 

Q. — Does  the  King  of  England  not 
create  new  Peers  yearly? 

A. — Yes.  It  is  a  regular  part  of  Eng- 
lish political  practice ;  but  the  Peers  that 
are  created  are  not  created  primarily  for 
voting  purposes  in  the  House  of  Lords. 
They  are  created  for  political  reasons 
largely,  it  is  true ;  but  the  reasons  are 
indirect. 

Q. — What  entitles  Englishmen  to 
peerage? 

A. — Theoretically,  peerages  are  be- 
stowed for  distinguished  service,  and  a 
great  many  Peerages  are  thus  granted. 
Many,  however,  are  granted  for  services 
that  are  "distinguished"  only  in  the  sense 
that  they  are  valuable  to  the  party  in 
power.  The  very  common  English  prac- 
tice of  rewarding  large  contributors  to 
political  funds  with  peerages  has  been, 
and  remains,  a  target  for  bitter  attack  in 
the  House  of  Commons. 

Q. — Is  the  House  of  Lords  wholly 
powerless  to  veto  bills  now? 

A. — It  has  lost  its  most  imminent  pow- 
er, that  of  refusing  its  consent  to  revenue 
bills  ("money  bills"  as  the  British  term 
them)  passed  by  the  House  of  Commons. 
A  money  bill  passed  by  the  House  may 
become  a  law  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  if  the  King  assents 
to  it.  Other  bills,  however,  can  over- 
ride a  House  of  Lords  veto  only  by  being 
passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  three 
times.  If  the  Lords  refuse  each  time  to 
pass  it,  it  becomes  a  law  without  their 
assent,  if  the  Crown  approves.  It  will  be 
seen  that  this  method  still  leaves  con- 
siderable power  of  veto  in  the  House  of 


Lords.  It  would  be  extremely  difficult  to 
pass  a  bill  three  times  through  the  House 
of  Commons,  especially  as  two  years  must 
elapse  by  law  between  the  first  passage 
and  the  third  passage. 

Q. — Have  the  Germans  a  system 
of  second  ballots? 

A. — Yes.  Unlike  Great  Britain  or  the 
United  States,  they  have  a  system  for  the 
Reichstag  elections,  by  which,  if  absolute 
majority  is  not  obtained  by  one  candidate 
over  all  the  others  who  are  contesting  the 
election,  a  second  ballot  is  taken  between 
the  two  candidates  who  have  received  the 
greatest  number  of  votes. 

Q. — What  is  the  German  Reichstag 
representation? 

A. — Each  member  represents  about  130,- 
ooo  inhabitants.  This  compares  roughly 
with  our  Congress,  each  Congressman  rep- 
resenting about  200,000  people  now.  The 
members  of  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons represented  counties  and  boroughs, 
many  of  widely  differing  areas  and  popu- 
lations until  the  passage  of  the  new  law 
above  referred  to;  and  there  are  also  9 
university  members  elected  by  the  uni- 
versities. 

Q. — How   is    the    Bundesrath   ap- 
portioned ? 

A. — Prussia  appoints  the  largest  num- 
ber of  members — 16.  Bavaria  appoints 
the  next  larger  number — 6.  Saxony  and 
Wiirttemberg  each  appoint  4.  Baden  and 
Hesse  each  appoint  3.  Mecklenburg- 
Schwerin  appoints  3.  The  other  States 
appoint  i  each.  Thus,  no  one  State  has 
a  majority;  but  it  is  claimed  that  Prus- 
sia, partly  by  having  16  votes  to  begin 
with,  and  partly  by  controlling  many  other 
votes,  can  always  control  the  61  members 
of  the  Bundesrath. 

Q. — How  many  States  are  in  the 
German  Empire? 

A. — There  are  26  States,  some  being 
Kingdoms,  some  Duchies  and  Principali- 
ties, and  others  Republics,  known  as  Free 
Towns. 

Q. — Are  there  really  republics  in 
Germany? 

A. — Yes.  There  are  three  little,  but 
powerful,  republics — the  three  free  towns 
or  cities  of  Liibcck,  Bremen  and  Ham- 
burg, each  of  which  proudly  calls  itself 
Freie  or  Hansestadt  (Free  or  Hanseatic 


2l8 


Questions  and  Answers 


City).  The  freedom  of  these  independent 
cities  really  dates  back  centuries  to  the 
Hanseatic  League,  but  they  are  under 
modern  constitutions,  adopted  in  1848 
and  1849,  and  often  revised  to  make 
them  highly  up-to-date. 

Q. — Do    these    German    republics 
really  rule  themselves? 

A. — They  are  exactly  as  independent 
and  powerful  in  their  own  right  as  are 
the  big  Kingdoms  of  Germany.  They  are 
ruled  by  Senates  elected  for  life  and  by 
big  bodies  of  burgesses,  elected  by  all 
the  citizens  for  terms  of  years  ranging 
from  four  to  six.  Liibeck  has  120  burg- 
esses, Hamburg  has  160,  and  Bremen  has 
140.  The  head  of  the  Republic  is  Burg- 
ermeister  (Mayor),  who  is  elected  by  the 
citizens.  Bremen  has  two  burgermeisters, 
elected  at  the  same  time,  and  governing 
together  for  four  years.  Hamburg  has 
two,  a  first  and  a  second.  Liibeck  con- 
tents herself  with  one. 

Q. — Are  the  republics  important  in 
the  empire? 

A. — Bremen  and  Hamburg  are  the  two 
shipping  ports  of  the  empire.  Through 
them  flows  the  commerce  of  the  nation, 
and  the  il/2  millions  of  citizens  are  among 
the  richest  and  most  influential  in  the 
country,  wielding  an  enormous  political 
and  financial  power.  The  great  German 
steamship  lines  are  owned  directly  by 
Bremen  and  Hamburg  men.  Both  ports 
count  their  shipping  by  the  million  tons, 
and  Hamburg  has  often  been  described 
as  the  most  advanced  and  elaborate  port 
in  the  world. 

Q. — Have  all   the   German  States 
Parliaments  of  their  own? 

A. — All  have  separate  representative  as- 
semblies, except  Alsace-Lorraine  and  the 
two  grand  duchies  of  Mecklenburg- 
Schwerin  and  Mecklenburg-Strelitz. 
Prussia,  Bavaria,  Saxony,  Wurttemberg, 
Baden  and  Hesse  have  the  two-chamber 
system.  The  smaller  States  have  one 
House  only.  The  smallest  principality, 
that  of  Schaumburg-Lippe,  has  only  15 
members,  Brunswick,  the  largest  of  the 
smaller  States,  has  a  chamber  of  48  mem- 
bers. 

Q.— Just  what  is  a  "Junker"? 

A. — It  is  a  term  that  dates  back  to 
feudal  times,  when  it  meant  a  junior 
nobleman,  a  "young  Herr."  That  mean- 
ing, of  course,  has  long  since  disappeared, 


with  the  English  term  "squire,"  which 
meant  practically  the  same  thing,  a 
"squire"  being  one  of  gentle  blood  who 
had  not  yet  been  made  knight.  To-day, 
while  the  term  "Junker"  may  be  applied  to 
any  member  of  a  hereditary  nobility,  it 
is  directly  applied  to  the  firmly  conserva- 
tive and  aristocratic  land-holders.  Be- 
cause these  men  represent  most  drastically 
the  undemocratic,  privileged  classes,  the 
term  "Junker"  has  come  to  signify  al- 
most a  political  party  in  Germany.  It  is 
used  by  the  liberal  opposition  as  a  term 
of  satire  and  reproach,  and  in  its  slang 
use  it  has  come  to  be  applied  to  any 
swaggering,  haughty  fellow.  It  is  used 
mostly  as  referring  to  Prussians. 

Q. — Is  it  only  politics  that  give 
Prussia  her  big  place  in  Ger- 
many? 

A.— No.  Prussia  is  the  "hustler"  of 
Germany.  Before  the  Franco-Prussian 
War,  the  various  German  States  were 
very  easy-going,  both  politically  and  so- 
cially. They  were  content  with  a  loose 
national  federation  that  left  them  a  ready 
prey  to  any  other  nation.  They  had  done 
little  to  develop  commerce  or  manufac- 
tures. Their  science  was  excellent,  but 
it  was  limited  largely  to  the  laboratory 
or  the  university.  It  was  the  crude  but 
intensely  alive  Prussian  who  gave  all  the 
latent  German  powers  their  vitalizing  im- 
petus. Prussia  made  an  iron  whole  put 
of  the  many  widely  varying  State  armies. 
Prussia  flung  railroads  through  the  em- 
pire. 

Q. — Do  the  other  States  like  Prus- 
sia? 

A. — Perhaps  it  is  a  good  deal  like  the 
attitude  of  our  smaller  States  toward 
the  bigger  ones.  As  a  rule,  the  general 
interests  of  all  are  so  closely  knit  with 
the  Federation,  that  they  do  not  raise 
the  issue  of  Prussian  hegemony.  But 
whenever  there  arise  questions  with 
sharply  defined  State  interests,  there  is 
always  a  very  positive  opposition  to  the 
big  State.  The  most  decided  jealousy  ex- 
ists between  Prussia  and  Bavaria,  the  lat- 
ter State  being  extremely  insistent  on  its 
rights  and  dignity. 

Q. — Are  the  Prussians  like  the 
other  Germans? 

A. — They  are  very  unlike  the  rest.  It 
is  essentially  the  Prussian  of  the  flat 
north  country  who  has  given  the  world  the 
idea  that  the  Germans  are  all  a  very 
blond  type,  with  light  blue  eyes  and  fea- 


Germany  (Political  Structure) 


219 


tures  that,  on  the  whole,  express  a  stren- 
uous and  not  particularly  amiable  char- 
acter. As  a  matter  of  fact,  while  the 
Germans,  like  all  the  Germanic  races,  in- 
cluding the  English,  are,  as  a  race,  fair 
and  blue-eyed,  the  great  mass  of  Ger- 
many, to  the  south  of  Prussia,  is  far 
darker  than  the  Prussians  or  the  "Platt- 
Deutsche,"  as  the  other  Germans  call  the 
northernmost  Prussians.  The  Bavarians' 
hair  and  beards  incline  to  a  golden  brown. 
The  Wiirttembergers  are  extremely  dark 
— brunette,  and  even  black-haired,  look- 
ing rather  Spanish  in  many  cases.  There 
really  is  a  far  greater  difference  between 
the  northern  and  southern  Germans  than 
there  is  between  our  northerners  and 
southerners. 

Q. — Do     the     southern     Germans 
hate  the  Prussians? 

A. — No.  They  do  not.  But  there  has 
always  been  a  very  general  feeling  of  in- 
tellectual disdain  for  the  Prussian.  His 
marked  material  abilities  were  recognized, 
though  not  always  admired,  and  his  faults 
also  were  recognized  and  pretty  sharply 
characterized.  He  was  accounted  crude 
and  sordid  by  the  idealistic  and  romantic 
southern  Germans.  Indeed,  it  is  not  at 
all  far-fetched  to  say  that  the  attitude  of 
the  South  German  toward  the  North  Ger- 
man Prussian  is  much  like  the  old-time 
attitude  of  the  American  southerner  to- 
ward the  northerner,  with  the  difference 
that  all  the  German  dislikes  are  subordi- 
nate to  the  mighty  passion  for  maintain- 
ing national  unity. 

Q. — How  is  Prussia  governed? 

A. — The  State  government  of  Prussia 
is  by  a  House  of  Representatives  (Land- 
tag), consisting  of  two  chambers,  the 
upper  being  known  as  "Herrenhaus" 
(House  of  Lords),  and  the  lower  as 
Chamber  of  Deputies.  The  King,  as  ex- 
ecutive head  of  the  Government,  is  as- 
sisted by  a  council  of  ministers  whom  he 
himself  appoints. 

Q. — Are  Ministers  in  Prussia  re- 
sponsible to  Parliament? 

A. — No.  They  are  appointed  by  the 
Crown,  and  are  not  necessarily  members 
of  either  House,  although  they  have  the 
right  to  speak  in  either  of  them  whenever 
they  so  desire.  But  they  may  not  vote. 
They  are  not  responsible  to  Parliament 
for  their  actions,  but  are  indirectly  curbed 
by  the  fact  that  no  laws  can  be  passed 
without  the  consent  of  both  Houses  of 
Parliament.  The  members  of  Parliament 


have  control  of  the  finances,  and  can  vote 
or  refuse  taxes.  The  King  can,  if  he 
wishes,  originate  legislation,  but  it  must 
be  introduced  into  the  Landtag  by  a  re- 
sponsible Minister. 

Q. — Is  the  Prussian  Herrenhaus 
like  the  British  House  of 
Lords  ? 

A. — Somewhat.  But  while  the  British 
House  of  Lords  is  almost  wholly  heredi- 
tary, the  Prussian  House  of  Lords  is 
partly  appointive.  The  members  of  the 
Prussian  body  are:  (i)  royal  Princes; 
(2)  50  heads  of  territorial  nobility;  (3) 
a  number  of  life-peers  chosen  by  the  King 
from  land-owners,  manufacturers  and 
"national  celebrities";  (4)  eight  noble- 
men elected  by  land-owners  of  all  degrees ; 
(5)  representatives  of  universities,  heads 
of  university  chapters  and  burgomasters 
of  towns  with  more  than  50,000  popula- 
tion; (6)  an  unlimited  number  of  mem- 
bers nominated  by  the  King. 

Q. — How  does  the  actual  member- 
ship of  the  two  Houses  of 
Lords  compare? 

House 

Herren-      of 
haus.      Lords 

Agriculture    48 

Commerce  and  industry...     48 

Trade    12 

Labor 24 

Education    16 

Clergy  17  26 

Municipalities   36 

Rural  communities 36 

Land-owners  24 

Mayors  of  large  towns 20 

Appointed  by  the  King 94 

Princes   24  3 

Hereditary  peers 621 

Law  6 

Totals   399  656 

Q. — Is  the  Prussian  Lower  House 
elected  by  universal  franchise? 

A. — Yes.  By  universal  franchise,  but 
not  by  equal  franchise.  Every  Prussian 
citizen  is  allowed  to  vote,  but  he  elects 
"electors" — an  indirect  method,  like  our 
method  of  electing  a  President  by  first 
electing  the  electoral  college.  These  elec- 
tors, in  turn,  are  divided  into  three 
classes,  according  to  the  amounts  of  taxes 
paid,  and  it  is  this  method  which  became 
the  point  of  attack  for  the  political  re- 
formers in  Germany  during  the  war,  with 
the  result  that  the  Emperor,  as  King  of 


22O 


Questions  and  Answers 


Prussia,  supported  a  reform  bill  to  make 
the  suffrage  really  equal.  Under  the  tax- 
classification  method,  the  biggest  taxpay- 
ers were  automatically  able  to  cast  the 
biggest  vote. 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies  (Abgeordne- 
tenhaus)  has  443  members,  sitting  for  five 
years.  Any  Prussian  citizen  is  eligible 
to  sit  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

Q. — Is  education  compulsory  in 
Germany  ? 

A. — It  is  general  and  compulsory.  The 
elementary  schools  are  supported  by  local 
rates  in  every  town  and  village,  and  the 
school  age  is  from  six  to  fourteen. 

Q. — How  do  schools  compare  in 
the  warring  nations? 

A. — Germany  (population  65  millions) 
had  10  millions  of  pupils  in  elementary 
schools  in  the  last  school  census.  The 
United  States  (population  102  million) 
had  20  million  pupils.  Great  Britain  (pop- 
ulation 47  million)  had  7J4  million  pupils. 
France  (population  40  million)  enumer- 
ated a  little  less  than  5  million  pupils. 
Italy  (population  36  million)  had  3l/2 
million  pupils. 

Q. — What  is  the  proportion  of  il- 
literacy in  the  warring  Euro- 
pean Powers? 

A. — According  to  the  U.  S.  Census  Bu- 
reau figures  it  runs  as  follows :  illiteracy 
among  German  army  recruits,  .05  per 
cent;  illiteracy  among  army  recruits  in 
United  Kingdom  (Great  Britain),  I  per 
cent ;  French  army  recruits,  4.3  per  cent ; 
Italian  army  recruits,  31.1  per  cent;  Rus- 
sian, 61.7  per  cent;  Roumanian,  41.0  per 
cent;  Serbian,  43.4  per  cent;  Bulgarian, 
25.4  per  cent ;  Belgium,  7.9  per  cent. 
There  are  no  figures  for  Austro-Hun- 
garian  army  recruits. 

Q. — Does  Germany  lead  in  educa- 
tion? 

A. — Before  the  war,  tHfere  was  a  general 
acceptance  of  the  statement  (made  by 
nearly  every  writer  and  sociological  stu- 
dent of  the  world)  that  Germany  was 
eminent  in  advanced  education — particu- 
larly that  sort  of  scientific  education 
which  is  international  in  character  to  the 
extent  that  it  draws  advanced  students 
from  other  countries  who  wish  to  com- 
plete their  special  knowledge. 


Q. — How  did  German  universities 
compare  with  the  famous  Eng- 
lish ones? 

A. — If  universities,  technical  schools, 
production  of  books,  and  the  like,  be 
taken  as  guides,  Germany  leads.  Ger- 
many has  22  universities,  with  an  enrol- 
ment of  53,000. 

England's  18  universities  have  an  en- 
rolment of  35,000,  drawn  almost  exclu- 
sively from  the  upper  classes.  Germany 
has,  in  addition,  n  technical  schools  rank- 
ing as  universities,  with  16,000  students, 
and  32  other  technical  academies.  In 
addition,  there  are  some  430  commercial 
schools,  and  more  than  a  hundred  schools 
where  students  are  prepared  for  the  tex- 
tile and  other  great  industries.  In  Eng- 
land, technical  schools,  supported  by  pub- 
lic funds,  had  in  1913  an  enrolment  of 
only  1,485.  It  is  estimated  that  46  out  of 
every  thousand  of  the  population  in  Eng- 
land, attend  secondary  schools ;  in  Bel- 
gium, 47 ;  in  Switzerland,  72 ;  and  in  Ger- 
many, no. 

Q. — Does  Germany  publish  more 
books  than  Great  Britain? 

A. — Roughly,  in  ordinary  years  there 
are  some  12,000  works  published  in  Great 
Britain.  The  annual  German  production 
is  35,000. 

Q. — Is  there  a  State  religion  in 
Germany  ? 

A. — The  Imperial  Constitution  provides 
for  entire  liberty  of  conscience,  and  for 
complete  social  equality  among  all  relig- 
ious confessions.  In  the  different  States 
there  are  various  minor  differences  in  the 
relations  between  Church  and  State.  The 
majority  of  the  religious  population  is 
Protestant,  and  the  majority  of  the  Prot- 
estants are  Lutheran.  These  Protestants 
form  about  63  per  cent  of  the  church  cen- 
sus. Catholics  form  about  36  per  cent. 
Roman  Catholics  are  in  the  majority, 
however,  in  three  of  the  States — Bavaria, 
Baden  and  Alsace-Lorraine. 

Q. — Has  Germany  more  boys  than 
girls  ? 

A. — In  normal  times  more  boys  were 
born  each  year  than  girls.  In  the  last 
year  for  which  we  have  orderly  figures 
(1913)  there  were  60,000  more  boys  born 
than  girls.  It  is  said  that  war  tends  to 
change  this  ratio,  but  there  is  no  scientific 
warrant  for  the  belief,  and  no  statistics 
have  ever  been  kept  to  enable  anybody 
to  figure  it  out. 


Germany  (Political  Structure) 


221 


Q. — Can  Germany  get  more  sol- 
diers out  of  its  population  than 
any  other  nation? 

A. — Many  figures  have  been  given  in 
the  first  three  years  of  war  to  prove  that 
this  or  that  nation  can  or  cannot  extract 
from  its  population  as  much  human  war 
material  as  some  other  nation  can.  Most 
of  these  mathematical  exercises  were  val- 
uable only  as  intellectual  pastimes.  It 
seems  true  to  say  that  Germany  can,  with- 
out doubt,  extract  from  her  growing 
young  male  population  at  least  as  many 
men  as  any  other  nation  can  draw.  And 
it  may  be  assumed,  as  a  further  element 
of  calculation,  that  Germany's  very  up- 
to-date  hygienic  care  for  her  population 
will  have  given  the  growing  males  a  max- 
imum chance  for  physical  efficiency.  This 
does  not  mean,  however,  that  they  are 
supermen.  There  is  a  big  proportion  of 
each  generation  who  are  physically  unfit, 
as  in  every  country. 

Q. — Have  the  German  Socialists 
always  opposed  militarism? 

A. — They  have  done  so  consistently  and 
continually.  As  recently  before  the  war 
as  1912,  there  was  a  big  Socialist  anti- 
military  explosion  in  the  Reichstag.  It 
was  on  October  20,  1912,  and  on  that  same 
day  demonstrations  were  made  in  Dus- 
seldorf,  Dortmund,  Bremen,  Kiel,  Leip- 
zig, Berlin,  Hamburg,  Dresden,  Spandau, 
Cassel,  Frankfurt  and  Stuttgart.  Simi- 
lar ones  occurred  on  November  17,  1912, 
in  Bremen  and  Hanover. 

In  October  and  November,  1912,  pro- 
tests against  the  advances  of  Austrian  di- 
plomacy in  the  Balkan  situation  were 
made  in  the  Bavarian  Parliament,  and  in 
the  Austrian  Parliament.  Protest  meet- 
ings were  held  during  these  months  at 
Prague  and  other  Hungarian  towns,  Vi- 
enna, and  throughout  Austria. 

The  German  Socialists  protested  in  Par- 
liament (Reichstag)  against  the  Zabern 
Affair  on  November  28  and  December  3 
and  4,  1913,  and  again  on  January  23  and 
24,  1914. 

Q. — Did  the  Socialists  ever  vote 
for  Army  and  Navy  appropria- 
tions? 

A. — Yes.  They  did  so  once — the  year 
before  the  war.  Before  1913  the  Ger- 
man and  Austrian  Socialists,  in  their  Par- 
liaments, had  voted  at  all  times  against 
the  Army  and  Navy  budgets,  and  against 
all  increase  in  taxes  for  military  purposes. 
In  September,  1913,  however,  the  German 


Socialists  voted  in  favor  of  such  a  tax, 
and  defended  their  action  in  their  party 
press. 

Q.— What  did  the  Socialists  do 
when  war  came? 

A. — At  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  the 
German  Socialist  party  issued  a  "Procla- 
mation," in  which  occurs  the  following: 
"Not  one  drop  of  a  German  soldier's 
blood  shall  be  sacrificed  to  the  lust  of 
power  of  the  Austrian  rulers  and  to  the 
imperialistic  profit-interests." 

Mass-meetings  were  held  in  Berlin  on 
July  28,  1914—28  meetings  in  all,  with  an 
attendance  estimated  at  70,000.  Similar 
meetings  were  held  in  nearly  all  the  other 
large  cities,  often  dispersed  by  police  and 
soldiers.  On  July  29,  1914,  the  Vorwaerts, 
the  Socialist  daily  in  Berlin,  placed  the 
blame  on  Austria. 

In  July,  1914,.  the  Austrian  Socialists 
protested  in  Parliament  and  in  mass-meet- 
ings against  the  policy  pursued  by  the 
Austro-Hungarian  Government  towards 
Serbia. 

When  war  was  declared,  however,  the 
Austrian  and  Hungarian  Socialists  sup- 
ported their  Government. 

Q. — What  was  the  Reichstag's 
politics  when  we  declared 
war? 

A. — On  March  I,  1917,  the  following 
parties  were  represented :  Center  party, 
91 ;  Social  Democrats,  89 ;  National  Lib- 
erals, 44 ;  Radicals,  46 ;  Conservatives,  45  ; 
German  party,  26;  Poles,  18;  Social 
Democratic  Labor  Union,  19;  Independ- 
ents, 15. 

Q. — Has  no  party  a  majority  in 
the  Reichstag? 

A. — The  total  number  of  Reichstag  del- 
egates is  393,  with  no  one  party  having 
anything  like  a  majority.  The  various 
factions  line  up  in  perplexing  ways  on 
various  questions.  The  general  rule  has 
been  that  in  close  questions  the  Center 
party  (which  used  to  be  called  the  Cleri- 
cal party,  and  still  is  heavily  Catholic) 
often  had  the  deciding  vote,  because  it 
could  throw  its  big  group  of  votes  to  one 
side  or  the  other. 

The  Social  Democrats  have  a  similar 
power,  but  they  have,  as  a  rule,  not  ac- 
cepted the  tactics  of  throwing  their  votes 
to  any  side,  preferring  to  vote  solidly  and 
single-mindedly  for  their  own  particular 
purposes. 


222 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — How  many  Socialists  are  in 
Germany  ? 

A. — The  general  German  elections  of 
1912  showed  4,250,000  Socialists  in  a  total 
number  of  14,400,000  voters.  They  had 
2*4  million  adherents  more  than  the  next 
most  powerful  party,  the  Center  party. 
The  parties  that  followed  in  numerical 
importance  were  :  National,  Liberals,  Rad- 
icals and  Conservatives.  Each  of  these 
had  more  than  a  million  adherents.  Thus, 
while  the  Socialist  element  among  the 
German  voters  is  far  from  a  possible  ma- 
jority of  the  popular  suffrage,  it  is  easily 
the  most  powerful  party  in  the  empire,  so 
far  as  massed  solidarity  is  concerned. 

Q. — Who  first  proposed  "No  An- 
nexations, No  Indemnities"? 

A. — It  was  the  peace  formula  of  Philip 
Scheidemann  and  the  majority  of  German 
Socialists,  and  it  was  quickly  adopted  by 
the  Council  of  Workmen's  and  Soldiers' 
Deputies  in  Petrograd,  who,  moreover, 
added  "the  right  of  all  nations  to  deter- 
mine their  own  destiny."  The  Council 
of  Workmen's  and  Soldiers'  Deputies 
protested  against  the  continuation  of  the 
war  for  the  annexation  of  peoples  against 
their  will  or  for  imperialistic  ends.  The 
minority  German  Socialists  adopted  the 
Russian  formula. 

Q. — When  was  there  a  mutiny  in 
the  German  fleet? 

A.— The  trouble,  which,  no  doubt,  really 
did  reach  the  magnitude  of  a  mutiny,  or 
almost  mutiny,  appears  to  have  occurred 
early  in  the  summer  of  1917.  Very  little 
actual  fact  reached  the  world.  There  was 
a  discussion  in  the  Reichstag,  but,  while 
it  was  fairly  full  about  the  political  as- 
pects of  the  disorder,  there  was  little  said 
about  the  actual  happenings.  Many  long 
and  elaborate  dispatches  reached  Amer- 
ica from  neutral  and  Allied  countries, 
some  so  circumstantial  as  to  be  quite  con- 
vincing. These  told  of  officers  being 
killed  and  thrown  overboard  on  a  num- 
ber of  ships,  bombardment  of  the  mutin- 
ous ships  by  the  coast  batteries,  etc. 

Q. — Were  these  stories  not  true? 

A. — Many  of  them  were  obviously  made 
of  whole  cloth,  for  the  various  detailed 
accounts  were  so  utterly  different  from 
each  other  as  to  prove  this.  That  does 
not  mean,  however,  that  we  can  tell  which 
account  was  untrue,  or  which  may  have 
been  true.  The  mutiny  was  undoubtedly 
serious,  for  a  number  of  sailors  were 


condemned  either  to  death  or  long  impris- 
onment, and  the  Government  declared  its 
intention  of  prosecuting  three  Socialist 
Reichstag  members,  for  their  share  in 
spreading  propaganda  that  caused  the  un- 
rest. 

Q. — When  did  the  strikes  against 
war-aims  start  in  Germany? 

A. — In  the  last  days  of  January,  1918. 
On  January  30,  1918,  dispatches  reached 
the  United  States  from  Zurich  that  the 
great  Socialist  newspaper  of  Germany,  the 
Vorwaerts  (Forward'),  of  Berlin,  had  an- 
nounced that  the  strikers  had  addressed 
to  the  Government  an  ultimatum  with  the 
principal  demands : 

(1)  Accelerated   conclusion   of   a   gen- 
eral peace  without  annexations  or  indem- 
nities. 

(2)  Participation    of    workmen's    dele- 
gates of  all  the  countries  in  the  peace  ne- 
gotiations. 

(3)  Equal  suffrage  in  Prussia. 

(4)  Release  of  arrested  labor  leaders. 

Q. — Did  the  German  Government 
imprison  the  strike  leaders? 

A. — Apparently  the  strike  did  not  have 
sufficient  sanction  of  the  Socialist  party 
and  similar  bodies  behind  it,  to  become 
more  than  a  very  striking  and  forcible 
demonstration.  The  military  government, 
however,  did  take  punitive  measures  in 
some  parts  of  Germany.  Wilhelm  Ditt- 
mann,  a  prominent  Radical  Socialist  mem- 
ber of  the  Reichstag,  was  accused  before 
an  extraordinary  court-martial  of  incit- 
ing to  high  treason,  and  sentenced  to  fort- 
ress confinement  of  five  years. 

Q. — What  is  "Fortress  Confine- 
ment"? 

A. — It^  is  imprisonment  that  does  not 
carry  with  it  the  stigma  or  onus  ^  of  im- 
prisonment in  jails  or  penitentiaries.  In 
fact,  in  a  sense  it  gives  the  imprisoned 
person  a  certificate  of  personal  honor, 
and  men  who  have  suffered  this  form  of 
punishment  need  feel  no  sense  of  shame. 
They  are  not  convicts,  either  in  the  legal 
or  the  moral  sense.  Officers  of  the  Ger- 
man Army  are  punished  for  military  of- 
fenses in  this  way.  Men  accused  of  moral 
crime  are  never  sent  to  fortresses. 

Q. — Does  fortress  imprisonment 
differ  in  actual  details  from 
other  imprisonment? 

A. — Wholly  so.  A  "fortress,"  in  the 
legal  sense,  may  be  a  very  wide  area,  in-» 


Germany  (Political  Structure) 


223 


deed.  It  is  not  necessarily  limited  to  the 
actual  limits  of  a  fortification.  There  are 
degrees  of  fortress  imprisonment.  A  man 
may  be  sentenced  to  "close  confinement" 
in  a  fortress,  in  which  case  he  may  not  be 
permitted  to  go  beyond  the  exact  limits 
of  a  walled  fort.  In  very  severe  sen- 
tences he  may  even  be  confined  largely 
to  a  casemate,  but  this  is  unusual.  Most 
cases  permit  the  arrested  man  to  move 
practically  at  will  throughout  the  utter- 
most limits  of  a  fortified  area.  ^  In  some 
cases,  this  may  give  him  practical  free- 
dom of  a  whole  town. 

Q. — Are  fortress  prisoners  treated 
like  convicts? 

A. — No.  In  fact,  pains  are  generally 
taken  to  avoid  any  similarity  between 
their  treatment  and  that  of  convicts.  They 
may  associate  with  the  officers  of  the 
fortress,  may  be  invited  to  mess  more 
or  less  like  other  guests,  and  have  prac- 
tically all  their  liberties  except  that  of 
physical  freedom.  A  great  deal  depends 
on  the  character  of  the  prisoner  and  his 
offense.  A  Socialist  strike-leader  is  not 
likely  to  receive  studied  politeness  from 
his  military  hosts  in  a  fortress ! 

Q. — Were  the  dissensions  in  Ger- 
many local? 

A. — No.  There  were  strikes  and  agi- 
tation against  the  militarist  war-makers 
in  all  parts  of  the  empire.  While  the 
General  Staff  in  Berlin  proceeded  rigor- 
ously against  the  strikers,  the  militarists 
did  not  dare  do  so  in  Bavaria  and  other 
southern  States  of  Germany. 

Q. — Were     the     southern     States 
against  Prussia? 

A. — According  to  all  indications,  they 
were  in  favor  of  the  Austrian  policy  of 
holding  out  a  hand  to  their  opponents. 
It  seemed  to  be  a  fairly  sharp  division— 
the  smaller  German  States  and  the  big 
cities  of  the  south  (Munich,  Stuttgart, 
Dresden)  against  Prussia.  The  three  Re- 
publics, too  (Hamburg,  Bremen  and  Lii- 
beck)  appeared  to  be  against  Berlin,  which 
means  Prussia. 

Q. — How  long  are  Germany's  land 
frontiers  ? 

A. — The  Russian  frontier  is  843  miles. 
The  French  frontier  is  242  miles.  The 
Swiss  frontier  is  256  miles,  and  the  Hol- 
land frontier  is  377  miles. 


Q. — Are  the  frontiers  all  guarded 
by  forts? 

A. — Yes.  The  fortress  system  on  the 
French  frontier  is  based  on  Metz,  and  the 
Cologne-Koblenz  system  north  of  it.  The 
Alsace-Lorraine  front  is  guarded  by  the 
Strassburg-New  Breisach  system. 

Q. — Is  Berlin  guarded  by  forts? 

A. — The  Berlin  system  of  fortifications 
is  Spandau,  Magdeburg  Torgau,  Kustrin. 
They  form  a  protective  zone  about  sixty 
miles  outside  of  and  around  Berlin. 

Q. — What  are  the  distances  in  the 
European  battleground? 

A. — The  comparative  scale  of  the  areas 
involved  is  shown  by  the  following  dis- 
tances : 

Miles. 

Dover-Brussels    140 

Brussels-Cologne  115 

Paris-Belgian  Frontier 115 

Paris-German  Frontier 170 

Dover-Calais    21 

London-Wilhelmshaven 400 

Strassburg-French  Frontier 30 

Berlin-Warsaw 330 

Berlin-Constantinople    1,699 

Paris-Lille   130 

Calais-Lille 55 

Berlin-Petrograd  1,150 

Berlin-Paris 550 

Berlin-Munich    315 

Munich-Paris    430 

Munich-Petrograd 1,300 

Munich-Venice  190 

Munich-Vienna 230 

Vienna-Belgrade    210 

Venice- Austrian   Frontier    45 

Galatz-Odessa 140 

Riga-Petrograd    300 

Q. — How  can  an  American  get  out 
of  Germany? 

A. — Under  the  rules  of  international 
law  resident  alien  enemies  may  be  de- 
tained, especially  those  subject  to  military 
service.  They  may  be  interned. 

For  an  American  to  quit  Germany,  a 
legal  and  an  "illegal"  way  is  open.  The 
American  may  ask  the  Ambassador  of 
Spain,  who  is  rendering  "his  good  serv- 
ices" to  the  U.  S.  A.  during  the  war,  and 
who  is  protecting  Americans  in  Germany, 
to  intervene  in  his  behalf,  and  obtain  per- 
mission for  him  to  leave.  This  has  been 
done  on  previous  occasions  with  good 
success  during  the  Maximilian  war  in 
Mexico,  the  Franco-Prussian  war,  the 
Chinese-Japanese  war,  the  Spanish-Amer- 


224 


Questions  and  Answers 


ican  war,  and  the  Russo-Japanese  war. 
If  the  American  is  detained  he  might 
prefer  to  end  his  captivity  by  adventur- 
ous escape.  Escapes  of  this  kind  have 
been  most  successful  into  Holland.  The 
case  of  the  American,  private  dentist  of 
the  Kaiser,  who  received  a  passport  from 
the  German  Government,  and  arrived  here 
— March,  1918— is  a  special  one,  and  can- 
not be  compared  with  others. 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  use  negroes 
against  General  Smuts  in  Af- 
rica? 

A. — There  were  only  2,000  Germans  in 
East  Africa,  but  they  had  drilled  about 
18,000  natives,  and  they  used  them  against 
the  South  African  forces.  There  were 
also  African  natives  under  General 
Smuts'  command,  although  he  chiefly  re- 
lied upon  Afrikanders  and  Indian  troops. 
The  Belgian  Army,  which  advanced  from 
the  C.ongo,  was  almost  entirely  composed 
of  natives,  and  the  Portuguese  forces 
which  entered  German  East  Africa  from 
the  south  were  native,  too,  for  the  most 
part. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  the  German 
Government  has  been  willing 
to  spend  large  sums  of  money 
in  the  United  States  to  sup- 
press evidence  that  the  Kaiser 
planned  the  war? 

A. — It  has  been  stated  with  authority 
that  an  American  journalist,  during  a 
yachting  trip  with  the  German  Emperor 
ten  years  ago,  got  an  interview  in  which 
the  monarch  expressed  ideas  that  seemed 
to  imply  a  plan  of  something  like  world- 
domination.  The  journalist  prepared  a 
magazine  article  for  a  New  York  maga- 
zine. The  German  Ambassador,  von 
Bernstorff,  heard  about  it  after  the  mag- 
azine was  printed  and  before  it  was  pub- 
lished. The  German  Government  bought 
all  the  sheets  of  the  magazine,  packed 
them  in  tin-lined  cases,  and  sent  a  German 
warship  for  them.  The  article  has  never 
been  published,  but  one  copy  of  the  mag- 
azine has  found  its  way  into  the  hands  of 
Secretary  of  State  Lansing,  and  has  been 
added  to  the  evidence  in  the  case  which 
will  probably  be  published  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  war. 

Q._What  is  the  "Hymn  of 
Hate"? 

A. — A  German  poem  of  hatred  against 
England,  written  by  Ernest  Lissauer,  in 
1915.  It  has  been  set  to  music  and  appears 
in  some  of  the  German  school  song  books. 


Q. — Why  are  the  Germans  called 
"Bodies"? 

.A. — "Boche"  appears  to  be  an  abbre- 
viation of  "Alboche,"  an  Alsatian  word 
for  "Allemand"  (meaning  German). 

In  Alsace-Lorraine,  it  has  been  for 
some  time  used  as  a  synonym  for  drunk- 
ard, liar,  barbarian,  and  adjectively  for 
"unmentionably  cruel."  The  French 
adopted  the  word  in  the  beginning  of  the 
war  as  typifying  the  Prussians.  Many 
other  explanations  are  given  from  time 
to  time  of  what  the  slang-word  really 
means,  and  how  it  came  to  be  applied. 

It  was  probably  used  also  in  the  Franco- 
Prussian  War  in  1870,  for  Zola,  in  his 
novel  La  Debacle,  a  story  dealing  with 
the  war,  puts  the  term  in  the  mouths  of 
French  soldiers  to  designate  the  Ger- 
mans. The  term  ce  boche  was  used,  before 
the  Franco-Prussian  War  at  least,  as 
equivalent  to  "that  chump,"  and  tcte  de 
boche  is  given  by  French  dictionaries  of 
slang  as  equivalent  to  "wooden-pate"  or 
"blockhead."  It  is,  perhaps,  for  this  rea- 
son that  some  French  scholars  derive  the 
present  use  of  boche  from  caboche,  a 
French  word  meaning  head. 

Q. — Are  outside  newspapers  cen- 
sored before  they  circulate  in 
Germany? 

A. — There  does  not  appear  to  be  any 
attempt  to  censor  the  Allied  journals  go- 
ing into  Germany.  The  Germans,  no 
doubt,  regard  them  much  as  we  regard 
the  Teutonic  newspapers,  that  is  to  say, 
as  inaccurate  and  misinformed,  and  take 
no  more  notice  of  our  comments  on  the 
war  than  we  do  of  theirs. 

Q. — Was  the  German  Emperor  on 
a  cruise  when  war  began? 

A. — He  was  away  on  his  cruiser  yacht 
when  the  crisis  began.  He  got  back,  how- 
ever, before  war  broke  out,  and  imme- 
diately sent  personal  telegrams  to  the 
Czar  and  King  George. 

Q. — Who  signed  the  order  for 
mobilization  in  Germany? 

A. — Presumably  it  was  signed  by  von 
Moltke,  who  was  at  that  time  chief  of 
the  General  Staff  in  Germany. 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  have  con- 
crete gun  emplacements  in 
France  and  Belgium  before  the 
war? 

A. — That  was  one  of  the  romantic  tales 
supplied  to  the  world  early  in  the  war. 


Germany  (Political  Structure) 


22$ 


It  was  the  sort  of  thing  that  appealed  to 
the  popular  imagination,  and  during  the 
time  that  the  story  enjoyed  the  greatest 
belief,  similar  concrete  gun-emplacements 
were  "discovered"  in  scores  of  places  in 
this  country,  even  as  far  away  from  the 
seat  of  war  as  the  mountains  of  Cali- 
fornia. The  knowledge  that  has  come  to 
the  public  since  then  regarding  the  meth- 
ods and  strategies  of  war,  has  served  to 
indicate  that  even  the  most  skilful  plot- 
ters cannot  quite  plot  out  beforehand  just 
where  a  big  engagement  will  be  fought  or 
just  where  the  hostile  position  is  going  to 
be.  Military  men  knew  that  the  story  was 
probably  fiction  of  a  rather  absurd  kind, 
but  it  was  no  part  of  the  Allied  military 
experts'  duty  to  disabuse  the  world  of 
the  idea. 

Q. — Were  German  soldiers  worse 
than  others  in  the  march  on 
Pekin? 

A.— According  to  revelations  made  by 
correspondents  who  managed  to  get 
through  to  Pekin,  and  by  officers  after 
the  trouble  was  over,  there  seems  to  have 
been  very  little  to  choose  between  the  con- 
duct of  the  various  troops.  Of  all,  the 
Japanese  emerged  with  the  cleanest  rec- 
ord, and  the  Tonkinese  troops  of  the 
French  with  the  worst.  The  Kaiser's 
message  to  Count  Waldersee,  who  com- 
manded the  expedition,  has,  however, 
been  everywhere  reproduced,  and  conse- 
quently it  has  been  assumed  that  the 
atrocities  attributed  to  the  international 
troops  were  all  committed  by  the  Ger- 
mans. 

Q. — What  was  the  object  of  Ber- 
lin's gigantic  Hindenburg 
statue? 

A.— The  object  of  it  was  the  same  as 
that  of  the  raffles  and  similar  ingenious 
devices  we  see  every  day,  namely,  to  raise 
money  for  certain  funds.  People  paid 
a  mark,  or  more  if  they  liked,  for  the 
privilege  of  hammering  a  nail  into  it. 
The  money  thus  obtained  was  devoted  to 
assisting  the  dependents  of  those  who 
have  fallen  in  battle. 


Q. — It  must  be  pretty  solid  to  stand 
all  those  nails? 

A. — It  is.  The  wood  used  weighed  26 
tons.  Three  solid  blocks  were  used,  the 
statue  being  carefully  carved  under  the 
direction  of  a  well-known  sculptor, 


George  Marschall.  No  less  than  87  ex- 
pert wood  carvers  worked  on  the  hard 
wood  night  and  day.  As  it  was  expected 
that  at  least  30  tons  of  nails  would  be 
driven  in,  special  steel  reinforcement 
weighing  six  tons  was  deemed  necessary. 
A  smaller  statue  to  serve  the  same  ob- 
ject was  erected  to  von  Muller  of  the 
famous  raiding  ship  Emden,  in  the  town 
of  Emden. 

Q. — Did  the  Dutch  claim  damages 
from  England  for  a  ship  sunk 
by  Germany? 

A. — Yes;  in  the  case  of  two  ships,  the 
Bernisse  and  the  Rive.  The  cases  were 
similar.  The  Dutch  claim  was  as  fol- 
lows : 

The  Bernisse  was  stopped  by  a  British 
auxiliary  cruiser.  A  British  officer 
boarded  her,  and  then,  on  a  signal  from 
the  cruiser,  proceeded  to  navigate  the 
ship  to  the  British  port!  of  Kirkwall, 
where  the  cargo  could  be  examined. 

The  Dutch  captain  protested,  "because 
the  ship  would  then  enter  into  the  area 
blockaded  by  Germany,  stating  that  there 
was  no  ground  for  such  an  order,  the 
ship  being  entirely  Dutch  property  and 
of  Dutch  nationality,  the  shippers  being 
a  French  concern,  the  cargo  being  con- 
signed to  a  Dutch  company." 

The  protest  availed  naught,  and  the 
Bernisse  continued  on  the  way  to  Kirk- 
wall,  still  flying  the  Dutch  flag.  On  May 
23  she  was  attacked  by  a  German  sub- 
marine. According  to  the  account  of  the 
Bernisse's  skipper:  "The  submarine  con- 
tinued to  fire  while  the  boats  were  being 
lowered,  without,  however,  hitting  either 
the  ship  or  any  of  the  crew.  She  then 
launched  a  torpedo,  which  struck  the  ship 
starboard  near  the  stokehold." 

The  Elve  case  was  almost  identical. 
The  British  Government  declined  to 
recognize  the  claim,  but  said  it  might  be 
presented  to  a  prize  court. 

Q. — How  much  power  has  the 
Crown  Prince  of  Germany? 

A. — Technically  he  has  none  (except 
of  course  such  military  power  as  is  given 
to  him  by  virtue  of  commanding  an 
army).  Politically  he  occupies  about  the 
same  officially  unimportant  position  as 
does  the  Heir-Apparent  to  the  British 
throne  (Prince  of  Wales). 

His  importance  in  the  national  and  in- 
ternational politics  of  the  day  comes  from 
two  main  causes:  (i)  he  might  at  any 
moment  become  Emperor  through  the 


226 


Questions  and  Answers 


death  of  Wilhelm ;  (2)  he  can  gather 
around  him,  or  be  used  as  a  rallying  point 
by,  factions  that  want  the  Empire  to  hold 
by  the  sword  what  it  has  gained  by  the 
sword.  This  would  make  a  sharp  rift  be- 
tween his  father,  the  Emperor,  and  him- 
self, should  the  Emperor  lean  to  the  lib- 
eral and  moderate  factions  in  Germany 
and  declare  for  concessions  and  more  or 
less  democracy.  Of  course  it  might  prove 
a  double-edged  weapon.  The  Crown 
Prince's  faction  might  win ;  but  should 
it  lose,  or  should  it  involve  the  Empire  in 
ruin,  it  might  end  the  reign  of  the  Hohen- 
zollern  dynasty. 

Q. — Did  the  present  emperor,  while 
Crown  Prince,  try  to  over-ride 
his  father? 

A. — Yes.  It  did  not  reach  the  extent 
of  a  quarrel  or  even  a  serious  disturb- 
ance of  family  relations;  but  the  present 
Kaiser's  father  was  altogether  too  placid 
an  Emperor  to  suit  his  very  strenuous 
son.  Friedrich  III  (lovingly  called 
"Unser  Fritz"  by  the  Germans)  was  a 
singularly  tolerant,  kindly,  easy-going 
man,  very  simple  and  old-fashioned.  His 
Germany  was  the  old,  deliberate  Ger- 
many. The  son,  Wilhelm,  was  intensely 
modern — a  foremost  exponent  of  the 
"strenuous  life"  made  famous  by  Roose- 
velt He  was  eager  to  build  up  the  great 
economic  and  social  structure  that  he  did 
succeed  in  building  up.  It  was  inevitable 
that  he  should  urge  his  ideas,  and  that  he 
should  become  desperately  impatient  with 
the  mild  Friedrich  and  with  the  stiff  con- 
servatism of  Bismarck. 


Q. — What  would  happen  should 
the  Kaiser  be  killed? 

A. — The  present  Crown  Prince  would 
succeed  to  the  Imperial  office  by  virtue  of 
the  Constitution.  There  is  hardly  a  doubt 
that  the  military  party  would  proclaim 
him  Emperor  instantly,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent any  possible  move  by  the  Socialists 
and  others  to  change  the  existing  provi- 
sions of  the  national  law. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  the  Germans  are 
officially  encouraging  polyg- 
amy? 

A. — The  charge  was  based  on  the  circu- 
lation of  a  curious  and  absurd  pamphlet 
advocating  not  only  polygamy,  but  big- 
amy and  various  other  forms  of  union 
which  were  even  more  unsavory.  The 
author  was  one  Carl  Hermann  Torges, 
who  appears  to  have  been  an  elderly  man 
of  eccentric  mentality,  as  is  suggested  by 
the  title  of  his  pamphlet :  "The  Second- 
ary Marriage  as  Only  Means  for  the 
Rapid  Creation  of  a  New  and  Powerful 
Army  and  the  Purification  of  Morality." 
He  says  of  himself  that  he  is  "over  70 
years  old  and  has  worked  through  life 
with  open  eyes."  The  pamphlet  was  ap- 
parently circulated  free,  and  this  fact  gave 
color  to  a  charge  that  it  had  been  pub- 
lished with  the  connivance  of  the  Ger- 
man Government.  As  such  a  policy 
(quite  apart  from  the  question  of  moral- 
ity and  the  love  of  husbands  and  wives) 
would  shatter  the  very  foundation  of  any 
such  economic  State  as  Germany,  it  seems 
hardly  important  to  expatiate  on  the 
matter. 


GERMANY  (FOOD) 


Q. — What  did  a  German  get  to  eat 
in  1918? 

A. — The  German  bill  of  fare  was  about 
as  follows : 

Meat :  In  Berlin,  250  grams — about  one- 
half  a  pound — per  person  per  week;  in 
Munich,  200  grams ;  in  Saxony,  150  grams. 

Bread :  250  grams  per  day  per  person ; 
all  persons  performing  manual  labor,  500 
grams. 

Potatoes :  In  Berlin,  five  to  seven 
pounds  per  person  per  week ;  in  Bavaria, 
usually  ten  pounds  per  person  per  week. 

Butter  and  Fats :  In  Berlin,  from  50  to 
75  grams  per  person  per  week;  in  Leip- 
zig, from  30  to  90  grams ;  in  Bavaria, 
between  60  and  90  grams. 

Milk:  Babies  and  patients  in  hospitals 
now  receive  from  one-fourth  to  one-half 
quart  per  day  each.  A  year  ago  every 
child  and  every  sick  person  received  one 
liter  (Yi  quart)  per  day. 

Sugar :  800  grams  per  month  per  per- 
son. 

Vegetables :  In  season. 

Fish :   Whenever   obtainable. 

Jam  or  marmalade :  About  one-fourth 
of  a  pound  per  month. 

No  coffee,  tea  or  cocoa,  but  small  quan- 
tities of  coffee  and  tea  substitutes.  No 
pure  beer,  but  only  beer  substitutes. 

Q. — What   were   the   military   ra- 
tions ? 

A. — The  soldier's  food  ration  was  as 
follows : 

Breakfast :  Coffee  or  a  substitute,  with 
dry  bread. 

Lunch :  Soup  with  occasional  small 
pieces  of  meat ;  vegetables  and  bread. 

Supper :  Bread  and  marmalade. 

One  pound  of  war  bread  daily  was  al- 
lowed. 

Q._What  is  the  "iron  ration"? 

A. — The  "iron  ration"  is  the  emergency 
ration  which  the  German  soldier  carries 
in  his  pack.  It  is  called  "iron  ration" 
because  iron-like  rules  surround  it.  The 
soldier  must  carry  it  always,  and  no  sol- 
dier must  ever,  under  any  circumstances, 
touch  it  except  in  the  last  extremity. 
When  the  starvation-blockade  began  to 
squeeze  the  people  hard,  and  they  were 
reduced  to  their  smallest  portions  of  the 
poorest  food-materials,  it  became  a  grim 
jest  among  civilians  to  refer  to  their 
"iron  rations." 


Q. — Was  the  German  bread  ticket 
intended  to  effect  an  equal  dis- 
tribution? 

A. — No.  It  was  issued,  at  first,  that  the 
poor  might  have  cheap  bread  and  that 
those  who  were  willing  to  buy  more  food 
than  the  bread  ticket  prescribed  should 
have  to  pay  heavily  for  the  indulgence. 

Q. — Is  Germany's  bread  very  poor  ? 

A. — The  official  regulations  provided 
Jor  a  bread  that  may  or  may  not  be 
highly  palatable,  but  that  consists  of  per- 
fectly healthful  and  nourishing  mixtures. 
"War  breads"  were  a  prominent  part  of 
Germany's  early  defense  against  starva- 
tion when  the  oceanic  blockade  began.  As 
we  have  found,  these  various  war  breads 
were  awful  only  in  name,  and  actually 
have  turned  out  to  be  decidedly  good,  on 
the  whole,  so  that  it  may  be  that  the 
United  States,  as  a  mere  matter  of 
health,  pleasant  variety,  and  perfectly 
profitable  economy  will  retain  most  of 
these  various  bran,  oatmeal,  rye,  corn  and 
wheat  mixtures  in  its  normal  dietary. 

However,  during  the  "peak"  of  the  ce- 
real famine  pinch  in  Germany,  the  war 
"breads  were  decidedly  not  nice  or  good, 
and  in  very  many  places  throughout  the 
empire  they  were  quite  terribly. bad.  Some 
reports  say  that  they  were  made  of  less 
than  40  per  cent  wheat,  the  other  60  per 
cent  being  sawdust,  powdered  straw,  and 
other  such  organic  but  vile  admixtures. 
That  kind  of  bread  means  that  a  part,  at 
least,  of  the  German  population  was  re- 
duced almost  to  the  situation  of  German 
peasants  in  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  when 
they  often  ate  straw. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  the  Germans 
made  many  food  substitutes? 

A. — Yes.  The  German  newspapers  have 
carried  masses  of  advertising  of  substi- 
tutes for  all  the  various  kind  of  food  that 
are  short.  According  to  the  reports  gen- 
erally circulated  through  the  outer  world, 
there  were  as  many  as  7,000  substitutes 
in  1917,  but  expert  analysis  of  the  avail- 
able lists  shows  that  this  huge  number  is 
arrived  at  by  lumping  the  following  four 
chief  classes  of  substitutes:  (i)  normal 
substitutes  like  oleomargarines,  ^  syrups, 
etc.,  such  as  are  used  in  all  countries ;  (2) 
natural,  though  unusual,  substitutes,  such 
as  potato  meal  for  flour,  vegetable  and 


227 


228 


Questions  and  Answers 


spice,  or  fish  and  vegetable  mixtures  for 
sausages,  sweetened  vegetable  mixtures 
for  jams,  etc.;  (3)  chemical  substitutes, 
some  of  apparent  utility,  many  of  doubt- 
ful value,  and  some,  no  doubt,  harmful 
such  as  fat  extracts  from  chemical  com- 
pounds, chemical  sweetenings,  and  chemi- 
cal compounds  aiming  to  give  a  more  or 
less  balanced  artificial  ration  of  proteids, 
carbohydrates,  etc. ;  (4)  swindling  sub- 
stitutes, which  the  Government  prosecutes 
rigorously  (more  so  than  in  times  of 
peace  even),  but  which  thrive  naturally 
owing  to  the  craving  of  people  for  long- 
denied  foods.  Among  such  fraudulent 
substitutes  were  "soup  cubes,"  which 
turned  out  to  consist  of  96  per  cent  cook- 
ing salt  and  4  per  cent  coloring  matter. 

Q. — Is  Prussia  much  bigger  than 
the  other  States? 

A. — Very  much  so.  Prussia  contains 
I35,OOO  square  miles,  against  the  29,000 
square  miles  of  Bavaria,  which  is  the  next 
larger  kingdom  of  the  Federation.  It 
has  40  million  people  as  against  Bavaria's 
7  million — that  is,  it  compares  in  man- 
power with  its  nearest  neighbor  about 
the  way  the  Middle  Atlantic  and  Great 
Lakes  States  compare  with  the  South  At- 
lantic group. 

Q. — Have  our  States  less  popula- 
tion than  Prussia? 

A. — No  single  'American  State  com- 
pares with  Prussia  even  remotely.  Prus- 
sia has  more  population  than  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  com- 
bined though  in  area  it  is  not  larger  than 
New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania. 

Q. — How  do  the  people  find  room? 

A. — They  live  224  to  the  square  mile. 
This  is  a  denser  population  than  we  have 
anywhere  except  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island  and  New  Jersey. 

Q. — Is  the  rest  of  Germany  densely 
populated? 

A. — Even  more  densely  than  Prussia. 
In  Saxony,  829  people  live  to  the  square 
mile.  No  other  German  State  quite  equals 
that!  But  everywhere  the  populations 
range  around  300  to  the  square  mile. 

Q. — How  can  there  be  any  room 
for  farms? 

A. — There  is  plenty  of  room  for  farms 
and  forests — but  there  is  no  room  for  wild 
lands,  or  waste  lands,  or  unproductive 


lands.  That  density  of  population  is  one 
of  the  secrets  of  Germany's  intensity  in 
economical  industries.  The  people  had  to 
do  it,  or  starve,  or  emigrate.  The  result 
was  intensive  agriculture,  intensive  indus- 
try and  now,  alas,  an  all  too  intensive  and 
"practical"  deadliness  of  purpose  in  war. 

Q. — How  does  Germany's  agricul- 
tural area  compare  with  ours? 

A. — Germany  has  about  88  million  acres 
arable  land  (farms,  pastures,  vineyards), 
as  against  more  than  600  million  acres  in 
America,  of  which  latter,  however,  only 
358  million  are  cultivated. 

Q. — How  do  we  compare  in  farms 
with  Germany? 

A. — We  had  more  than  6  million  farms 
in  1910  when  the  last  census  was  made. 
In  Germany,  in  1907,  the  number  of  farms 
cultivated  each  by  one  household  was 
5,736,000.  Our  farms,  of  course,  were 
much  larger  than  the  German  farms. 

Q. — What  were  the  chief  crops  of 
Germany  in  peace? 

A. — The  biggest  crop  was  rye.  The 
next  biggest  was  hay.  Then  came  oats, 
potatoes,  wheat,  barley  and  beets.  The 
smaller  crops  were  vines,  tobacco  and 
hops. 

Q. — Could  human  beings  live  on 
rye  flour  alone? 

A. — Yes.  Indeed,  dietary  experts  hold 
that  while  white  wheat  flour  is  one  of 
the  large  elements  for  a  perfect  human 
diet,  mankind  (and  especially  Americans) 
would  do  well  to  use  a  great  deal  of  rye 
flour  and  cut  down  heavily  on  the  highly 
bolted  and  unnaturally  whitened  wheat 
flours.  Rye  flour  is  coarse,  and  this  has 
an  excellent  effect  on  the  intestines,  which 
absolutely  demand  a  certain  amount  of 
coarse  material.  For  many  generations 
the  people  of  Germany,  France,  Switzer- 
land, etc.,  ate  hardly  anything  except 
"black  bread" — bread  made  from  rye 
flour  exclusively. 

Q. — What   has    German   intensive 
agriculture  done? 

A.— Statistics  collected  by  Dr.  Helf- 
ferich  in  1913  show  that  the  yield  per  acre 
of  wheat,  rye,  oats,  barley,  potatoes,  and 
hay  has  increased  77.7  per  cent  in  twenty- 
five  years ;  and  the  aggregate  yield  of 
these  crops  increased  87.7  per  cent,  not- 
withstanding an  increase  of  only  5.8  per 


Germany  (Food) 


229 


cent  in  their  acreage.  In  all  these  crops 
Germany  is  getting  a  larger  yield  per 
acre  than  any  other  of  the  large  agricul- 
tural countries.  At  the  same  time  Ger- 
many has  increased  production  of  beet 
sugar  about  two-and-one-half  fold.  These 
remarkable  results  in  agriculture  are  the 
more  striking  because  the  number  of  per- 
sons engaged  in  agriculture  has  remained 
practically  stationary. 

Q. — Did  the  privileged  classes  in 
Germany  escape  food  restric- 
tions ? 

A. — One  would  imagine,  naturally,  that 
they  did.  But  the  fact  that  the  Socialist 
newspapers  and  the  Socialist  members 
of  the  Imperial  Parliament  and  the  va- 
rious State  Parliaments  have  voiced  prac- 
tically no  serious  censure  of  the  govern- 
ment's enforcement  of  food  regulations, 
indicates  that  the  law  was  applied  in  about 
the  same  measure  to  everybody. 

It  is  known  that  several  times  highly 
placed  persons  appealed  to  the  Emperor 
himself,  but  without  avail.  The  live 
stock  and  other  materials  of  high  officers 
in  the  field  have  been  taken  from  their 
estates  and  a  Princess  was  not  allowed 
to  have  all  the  milk  from  a  special  cow, 
which  she  had  bought  for  her  child. 

Q. — Is  corn  native  to  Europe? 

A. — Not  if  you  mean  what  we  call 
/(corn" — the  American  plant  which  pro- 
duces its  fruit  in  large  cobs  covered  with 
a  green  sheath.  This  is  one  of  the  com- 
paratively few  important  foods  that  were 
/added  to  the  world's  supply  by  the  dis- 
covery of  America,  potatoes  being  the 
other  great  addition. 

In  Europe  the  name  for  this  western 
crop  is  maize,  and  that  is  the  correct 
•name.  "Corn,"  in  European  terms,  means 
wheat,  rye,  etc. 

Maize  is  raised  quite  extensively  now 
through  Europe,  but  it  is  nothing  like 
the  agricultural  leader  that  it  is  in  Amer- 
ica. 

Q. — What  coffee  substitutes  were 
used  in  Germany? 

A. — Coffee  substitutes  were  made  of 
chicory  (the  root  of  the  dandelion),  burnt 
or  roasted,  and  ground  beans  or  crusts, 
vegetable  husks,  etc.  "Chicory-coffee"  is 
not  an  unusual  suostitute  in  Europe. 
Many  of  the  French  and  German  lower 
classes  have  preferred  chicory  even  in 
peace  times — indeed,  many  French  people 
of  the  better  classes  hold  that  a  certain 
proportion  of  chicory  in  coffee  improves 


it.  Chicory  has  a  bitter  flavoring  element 
in  it.  It  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  health- 
ful, but  lacks  the  stimulating  properties 
of  coffee.  The  other  substitutes,  how- 
ever, are  of  qualities  ranging  from  un- 
satisfactory to  nasty. 

Q. — Can  Germany  get  fed  by  Rus- 
sia? 

_A. — The  food  situation  in  Germany  for 
given  years  preceding  the  war  was  as 
follows  (each  year):  (i)  Rye:  enough 
produced  for  Germany's  consumption  and 
a  small  surplus  to  export.  (2)  Wheat : 
1/9  was  imported  from  overseas  and  from 
Russia.  (3)  Barley:  */2  was  imported  al- 
most wholly  from  Russia.  (Used  for  fat- 
tening pigs.)  (4)  Maize  (corn)  :  %  came 
from  Russia  and  across  the  Atlantic. 
(Used  for  fattening  pigs.)  (5)  Bran: 
imported  i^£  million  tons,  ^  from  Rus- 
sia (for  cow  feed).  (6)  Oil-cake:  im- 
ported %  million  tons  from  Russia  and 
America  (for  cow  feed).  (7)  Artificial 
nitrogenous  manures ;  */2  came  from  Chile, 
none  from  Russia.  (8)  Rice :  24  imported 
from  British  India,  none  from  Russia. 
(9)  Eggs:  half  the  supply  from  Russia 
and  enemy  countries. 

Q. — Has  Russia  accumulated  any 
food-stuffs  ? 

A. — A  considerable  amount  of  various 
cereals  have  been  stocked  in  Russia.  Over 
the  first  three  years  of  war  this  accumu- 
lation was  about  24,000,000  tons.  In  1917, 
about  8,000,000  tons  were  available.  The 
production  of  food  cereals,  however,  has 
declined  steadily  since  1915,  and  the  cha- 
otic economic  conditions,  no  doubt,  have 
impeded  the  production  considerably 
since  March,  1917.  The  opening  of  the 
Russian  food  markets  to  Germany,  no 
doubt,  brought  the  Germans  and  Aus- 
trians  some  sorely  needed  relief  in  the 
early  part  of  1918,  but  nothing  had  then 
developed  to  prove  that  it  could  restore 
normal  conditions  in  the  Central  Empires. 
Normally,  the  Ukraine  wheat  fields  should 
be  able  to  feed  all  Europe  if  they  were 
cultivated  with  modern  machinery. 

Q. — Can   the   Germans   get  much 
meat  from  Bulgaria? 

A. — They  could  not  have  obtained  a 
great  deal,  although  the  Bulgars,  during 
recent  years,  have  devoted  a  good  deal 
of  attention  to  the  raising  of  sheep. 
These  had  become  so  numerous  that 
shortly  before  the  war  a  beginning  was 
made  with  a  huge  slaughterhouse  and 
freezing  establishment  at  Varna,  from 


230 


Questions  and  Answers 


which  mutton  was  to  be  exported  to  Tur- 
key, Greece,  and  even  Egypt.  Still,  what 
would  be  over-abundance  for  the  Bulgars 
would  not  go  very  far  for  Germany. 

Bulgaria  had  Sl/2  million  sheep  in  1910, 
the  date  of  the  last  animal  census.  Her 
cattle  amounted  to  1,600,000.  Altogether 
she  had  about  12  million  head  of  stock 
to  5  million  population.  Thus  she  had 
a  surplus. 

Q. — Are  there  any  figures  on  Ger- 
many's live  stock? 

A. — According  to  the  animal  census  in 
April,  1916,  the  number  of  cattle  in  Ger- 
many had  been  reduced  to  19,900,000,  and 
there  were  only  13,300,000  pigs  left.  A 
further  census  appears  to  have  been  taken 
in  September,  1916,  and  shows  a  remark- 
able increase,  especially  in  the  number  of 
pigs.  The  figures  are  as  follows : 


Horned 
Cattle. 

Calves    under    3 
months  

Young   cattle,   3 
months-2    yrs. 

Bulls   and   oxen 
over  2  years . . 

Cows   and  heif- 
ers over  2  yrs. 


Apr.  is,  Sept.  I,  Inc.  per 
1916.        1916.        cent. 

1,974,434     1,982,891  0.4 

6,092,718    6,307,504  4-6 

1,365,877     M5M22  6.2 

10,552,154  10,597433  0.4 


Total    19,921,18320,338,950    2.1 

Pigs. 

Under  6  months  9,055,382  11,204,076  23.7 

6-12  months ^,857,041    4,230,80048.1 

Over  12  months  1,424,779    1,825,242  28.1 

Total 13,337,202  17,261,108  29.4 

Q. — What  live  stock  had  Germany 
before  war? 

A. — According   to    the    official    German 
figures  there  were  in  September,  1912,  20,- 


182,000  cattle;  in  September,  1913,  20,094,- 
ooo.  On  those  dates  the  numbers  of  pigs 
were  21,821,000  and  25,659,000  respectively. 

Q. — Did  Germany  have  more  live 
stock  than  other  countries? 

A. — Germany  had  in  1916  about  505/2 
million  head  of  food-animals  (cattle, 
sheep,  swine,  etc.)  for  a  population  of 
about  68  million. 

The  United  States  had  in  1917  about 
176  million  head  of  live  stock  for  a  popu- 
lation of  about  102  million. 

Of  course,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  United  States  is  a  meat-exporting 
country,  while  Germany  is  not. 

Comparing  Germany's  live  stock  per 
head  of  population  with  that  of  non-ex- 
porting countries,  we  find :  France,  about 
29  million  head  of  meat  animals  to  40 
million  population ;  United  Kingdom 
(England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  Wales), 
about  45  million  head  to  45  million  popu- 
lation. 

Q. — How  does  German  milk  pro- 
duction per  cow  compare? 

A. — In  the  United  States  the  average 
yield  among  u  million  cows  is  420  gal- 
lons of  milk  per  cow  a  year.  In  Den- 
mark (1,500,000  cows),  the  average  yield 
per  cow  per  year  was  550  gallons  before 
the  war  when  feeding  conditions  were 
normal.  In  Germany  before  the  war  the 
average  yield  was  750  gallons  per  cow 
per  year. 

Q. — What    supplies    has    Austria- 
Hungary? 

A. — That  empire,  with  a  population  just 
about  the  same  as  that  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  had,  when  the  war  broke  out, 
17,000,000  cattle,  12,000,000  sheep,  13,000,- 
o°°  P»gs,  3,500,000  horses,  2,000,000  goats. 


THE  SELECTIVE  DRAFT 


Q.  —  When  was  the  selective  draft 
law  passed? 

A.  —  The  "Select  Service  Law"  is  an 
Act  of  Congress,  which  came  into  full 
force  May  18,  1917.  The  law  is  entitled: 
"An  Act  to  authorize  the  President  to  in- 
crease temporarily  the  Military  Establish- 
ment of  the  United  States."  Its  purpose 
was  the  raising  of  troops  to  carry  on  the 
war  against  Germany.  It  was  drawn  to 
create  a  "National  Army." 

Q.  —  Was  the  first  draft  really  a  se- 
lective one? 

A.  —  It  was,  of  course,  hoped  and  in- 
tended to  raise  our  new  army  in  a  way 
that  would  leave  as  many  agricultural 
workers  as  possible  on  the  farms  to  keep 
the  world  from  starving,  and  to  take  men, 
as  much  as  possible,  from  the  occupations 
which  were  less  essential.  The  actual  re- 
sults, however,  owing  to  our  haste  and 
inexperience,  were  not  by  any  means  in- 
telligently selective,  as  the  table  below 
of  the  numbers  and  percentages  accepted 
from  different  occupations  will  show  : 

Called.  Accepted.  Pet. 

Beverage  industries      5,752        1,472    25$%. 
Agriculture    ......  782,503    205,731 


Forestry   .........  24,507 

Clay,  glass,  etc  —  24,928 

Animal  husbandry.  15,642 

General  trade  .....  m,54i 


7,984 
6,022 


24 


4,570    29 
24,892    22 


Q.  —  When  was  the  first  drawing 
for  the  selective  draft? 

A.  —  The  official  drawing  of  numbers  to 
determine  the  men  of  the  country  to  con- 
stitute the  first  draft  for  the  National 
Army  was  July  20,  1917,  in  the  Office 
Building  of  the  United  States  Senate,  in 
the  presence  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
many  army  officers  of  high  rank,  Senators 
and  Representatives  and  many  citizens. 

Numbered  slips  incased  in  capsules 
were  drawn  by  two  blindfolded  men  and 
these  were  announced  and  unofficially 
transmitted  over  the  country  by  the  press. 
The  official  list  was  announced  later  by 
the  Secretary  of  War. 

The  first  number  drawn  was  258.  After 
that  the  numbers  were  drawn,  at  the  rate 
of  600  an  hour.  It  required  22  hours  to 
complete  the  work. 


Q. — What  is  meant  by  the  "master 
list"? 

A. — A  drawing  of  numbers  from  I  to 
10,500,  both  inclusive,  was  made  in  Wash- 
ington under  the  direction  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  War. 

A  schedule  or  master  list  was  prepared 
by  the  Provost  Marshal  General  contain- 
ing all  of  such  numbers  from  I  to  10,500, 
both  inclusive,  placed  in  the  exact  order 
in  which  they  were  drawn. 

The  first  number  drawn  was  placed  at 
the  top  of  column  i  of  the  master  list, 
the  second  number  drawn  was  placed  next 
below  in  such  master  list,  and  this  order 
was  followed  until  all  the  numbers  drawn 
were  so  placed  in  such  master  list  in  the 
exact  order  in  which  they  were  drawn. 

The  master  list  controls  and  determines 
the  exact  order  in  which  the  persons 
whose  registration  cards  are  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  respective  Local  Boards,  or 
may  hereafter  be  received  by  said  Local 
Boards,  are  liable  to  be  called  by  the 
Local  Board  for  Military  Service. 

Q. — Is  provision  made  to  notify 
families  of  boys  in  training 
camps  if  they  are  ill? 

A. — The  American  Red  Cross  has 
agreed  to  establish  in  the  camps  and  can- 
tonments in  the  United  States  the  service 
(already  furnished  in  France)  to  keep 
families  in  America  in  personal  touch  with 
their  boys,  ill  or  wounded  fn  the  field. 
This  action  is  in  response  to  a  request 
made  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  wrote 
that  "American  Red  Cross  representatives 
at  the  camps  here,  as  in  France,  would 
have  access  to  daily  lists  of  admissions 
and  evacuations  from  the  hospitals,  and, 
so  far  as  it  is  in  accord  with  necessary 
medical  rules,  would  be  allowed  to  talk 
with  sick  men.  They  would  be  expected 
to  keep  families  constantly  informed  as 
to  the  condition  and  progress  of  men  in 
the  hospitals,  to  write  letters  for  men 
unable  to  write  themselves,  and  in  gen- 
eral to  fulfill  that  clause  of  the  Red  Cross 
charter  which  designates  the  society  as  'a 
medium  of  communication  between  troops 
in  the  field  and  their  families  at  home.' " 

Q. — Can  a  man  be  drafted  who  has 
had  previous  service? 

A. — Yes,  he  is  a  civilian  and  liable  to 
draft. 


231 


232  Questions  and  Answers 

Q. — What  is  the  ratio  of  death  in         Secretary  Baker  said: 

the  U.  S.  Army?  P16  death  rate  *n  Ol!r  *°rces  in  the 

United    States,    from    mid-September    to 

A. — Figures   compiled   at  the  office  of  the  end   of   December   averaged   7.5   per 

Surg.  Gen.  William  C.  Gorgas,  U.  S.  A.,  thousand,  and  is  slightly  less  than  would 

and  made  public  on  Dec.  29,  1917,  show  have  been  the  death  rate  of  men  of  the 

that  with  more  than  900,000  soldiers  in  same  age  at  home.    In  1898  the  death  rate 

training  in  this  country  from  Sept.  21  to  per  thousand  was  20.14,  or  nearly  three 

Dec.  14,  there  were  only  1,391  deaths  from  times   as   great.     Our  death   rate  in  the 

all  causes,  an  average  rate  of  less  than  Army  during  the  year  1916,  just  before 

two  per  1,000.    Among  the  202,009  Regu-  the  war,  was  five  per  thousand.     Leaving 

lars  there  were  144  deaths.     There  were  out  the  deaths  due  to  measles  and  its  com- 

494  deaths  in  the  387,233  National  Army  plications,  our  rate  among  all  troops  in 

and   753  deaths   in   the   327,480   National  the  United  States  since  Sept.  I  has  been 

Guardsmen.  about  two  per  thousand." 

Q. — Where  are  the  draft  army  cantonments? 

Place.  Name.  Designation. 

Alexandria,  La Camp  Beauregard National  Guard 

American  Lake,  Wash Camp  Lewis National  Army 

Annapolis  Junction,  Md Camp   Meade Do. 

Anniston,  Ala Camp  McClellan National  Guard 

Atlanta,  Ga Camp  Gordon National  Army 

Augusta,  Ga Camp  Hancock National  Guard 

Ayer,  Mass Camp  Devens National  Army 

Battle  Creek,  Mich Camp  Custer Do. 

Charlotte,  N.   C Camp  Greene National  Guard 

Chillicothe,  Ohio Camp  Sherman National  Army 

Columbia,    S.    C Camp  Jackson Do. 

Deming,  N.  Mex Camp  Cody National  Guard 

Des  Moines,  Iowa Camp  Dodge National  Army 

Fort    Riley,    Kans Camp  Funston Do. 

Fort  Sam  Houston,  Tex Camp  Travis Do. 

Fort  Sill,  Okla Camp  Doniphan National  Guard 

Fort  Worth,  Tex Camp  Bowie Do. 

Greenville,  S.  C Camp  Sevier Do. 

Hattiesburg,    Miss Camp  Shelby Do. 

Houston,  Tex Camp  Logan Do. 

Linda  Vista,  Cal Camp  Kearney Do. 

Little  Rock,  Ark Camp  Pike National  Army 

Louisville,  Ky. Camp  Zachary  Taylor Do. 

Macon,  Ga Camp  Wheeler National  Guard 

Montgomery,  Ala Camp  Sheridan Do. 

Palo  Alto,  Cal Camp   Fremont Do. 

Petersburg,  Va Camp  Lee National  Army 

Rockford,  111 Camp  Grant Do. 

Spartanburg,  S.  C Camp  Wadsworth National  Guard 

Waco,  Tex Camp  McArthur Do. 

Wrightstown,  N.  J Camp  Dix National  Army 

Yaphank,  Long  Island,  N.  Y Camp  Upton Do. 

Q.— What  is  the  size  of  the  aver-  Q. — Has  a  decision  been  given  on 

age  American  cantonment?  the  constitutionality  of  the  Se- 

A.-A  camp  accommodating  37,ooo  men  lective  Draft  Law? 

is  about  two  miles  in  length  and  one  and  A.— Yes.     The  United  States  Supreme 

a  half  miles  in  breadth.    Each  camp  con-  Court  on  January  7,   1918,  passed  seven 

tains  about  1,600  buildings,  the  construe-  cases    arising   under    the    selective   draft 

tion  of  which  requires  34,000,000  square  iaw   and   decided   adversely  to   the   men 

feet  of  lumber.    For  heating  and  lighting  drafted, 
these  camps,  400  miles  of  electric  wiring 
and  60  miles  of  heating  pipes  .were  re- 
.quitexL 


The  Selective  Draft 


233 


Q. — What  total  number  of  Ameri- 
cans are  subject  to  draft? 

A. — There  are  estimated  to  be  in  the 
United  States  (in  round  numbers)  10,000,- 
ooo  men  between  the  ages  of  21  and  30 
inclusive.  This  number  represents  very 
nearly  10  per  cent  of  the  estimated  popu- 
lation of  the  country — between  103,000,000 
and  104,000,000.  The  figure  (10,000,000) 
is  reached  by  taking  the  number  of  males 
between  the  ages  of  21  and  30  inclusive, 
on  the  date  of  the  last  census,  April  15, 
1910,  and  on  July  I,  1917.  The  figures  for 
the  later  date  are  estimated  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  annual  numerical  in- 
crease since  1910  in  each  state  has  been 
the  same  as  the  average  annual  numerical 
increase  between  1900  and  1910. 

Q. — How  many  registrants  under 
the  first  draft  were  called? 

A. — The  total  number  of  registrants 
was  9,586,508.  Of  these  3,082,949,  or  32.16 
per  cent  were  called  by  the  various  regis- 
tration boards.  Those  not  called  num- 
bered 6,503,550,  or  67.84  per  cent  of  the 
total  number  of  men  between  the  ages 
of  21  to  30  who  registered  under  the  law. 
A  total  of  1,057,363  men  were  certified 
for  service  and  687,000  were  named  in 
the  first  call. 

Q. — How  many  of  the  men  called 
by  the  first  draft  failed  to  ap- 
pear? 

A. — The  total  number  of  men  called  to 
colors  was  9,586,508.  Of  these  252,294 
failed  to  appear. 

Q. — Were  many  drafted  men  re- 
jected at  the  camps? 

A. — The  percentage  of  rejections  at 
camp  varied  between  0.72  per  cent  and 
11.87  per  cent,  and,  as  the  physical  con- 
ditions of  the  men  from  the  different 
regions  cannot  account  for  this,  it  is  at- 
tributed to  differences  in  strictness  in  the 
examinations  by  the  camp  surgeons. 

The  valuable  mass  of  data  now  latent 
in  the  record  has  not  been  studied  in  its 
entirety.  But  of  10,000  men  spread  over 
eight  camps,  the  sources  of  defect  show- 
ing the  largest  percentages  were  eyes, 
teeth,  hernia,  ears,  heart  disease  and 
tuberculosis  in  the  order  given. 

Q. — What  proportion  of  men  went 
unwillingly  ? 

A. — "The  actual  state  of  mind,  of 
Bourse,  cannot  be  known,"  says  General 


Crowder,  "but  the  filing  of  an  unsuccess- 
ful claim  for  exemption  or  discharge  is, 
at  least,  an  index  of  unwillingness,  and 
figures  show  that  of  the  1,057,363  certified 
for  service,  those  who  filed  no  claims  for 
exemption  were  639,054,  or  60.44  per  cent 
— the  'involuntary'  conscripts  being  418,- 
309,  or  39.56  per  cent." 

Q. — How  many  aliens  were  draft- 
ed? 

A. — A  total  number  of  1,243,801  were 
registered.  Of  these,  772,744  were  Allied 
aliens,  148,274  were  neutral  aliens,  40,663 
were  enemy  aliens,  and  282,120  were  al- 
lies of  enemy  aliens.  The  number  called 
was  457,713,  and  of  this  76,545  were  fi- 
nally accepted  for  service — only  17  in  a 
hundred. 

Q. — Is  a  man  subject  to  draft  if  he 
becomes  thirty-one  before  the 
draft  call? 

A. — This  provision  of  the  act  reads, 
"Persons  shall  be  subject  to  registration 
who  shall  have  attained  their  21  st  birth- 
day and  who  shall  not  have  attained  their 
3ist  birthday  on  or  before  the  day  set  for 
the  registration,  and  all  persons  so  regis- 
tered shall  be  and  remain  subject  to 
draft." 

Q. — How  many  unmarried  physi- 
cally fit  men  become  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  each  year? 

A. — The  number  of  males  arriving  at 
the  age  of  21  each  year  is  estimated  to 
be  960,000.  As  shown  by  the  percentages 
of  acceptance  in  the  first  draft,  this  esti- 
mated proportion  of  those  unmarried  and 
physically  fit  will  be  96  per  cent  unmar- 
ried, and  76.3  per  cent  fit  physically. 

Q. — Is  the  class  of  draftable  per- 
sons to  be  enlarged? 

A. — The  following  _  suggestions  have 
been  made  by  a  majority  of  the  boards: 
that  young  men  who  are  under  age  should 
come  within  the  law  when  they  reach  the 
minimum  draft  age;  that  young  men  of 
18  or  19  years  should  be  enrolled  and 
trained  so  as  to  be  ready  for  service  im- 
mediately upon  attaining  draft  age ;  19 
and  34  are  the  limits  most  frequently  sug- 
gested, though  some  recommend  40  to 
45  years  as  the  upper  limit.  There  is  a 
distinctly  stronger  demand  for  raising  the 
maximum  age  than  for  lowering  the  min- 
imum. Provost  Marshal  General  Crow- 
der, discussing  the  enlargement  of  the  age 
limits  for  selective  military  service  said, 


234 


Questions  and  Answers 


early  in  1918,  that  such  suggestons  had 
been  made  in  his  report  to  the  Secretary 
of  War. 

Q. — How  many  claims  for  exemp- 
tion were  granted  in  the  first 
draft? 

A. — Of  the  total  number  of  men  called 
for  registration  by  the  first  draft  (about 
3  million)  1,560,570,  or  50.62  per  cent, 
made  claims  for  exemption.  Of  this 
number,  77.86  per  cent  were  granted.  895,- 
150,  or  73.99  per  cent,  were  on  the  grounds 
of  dependency;  228,452,  or  19.67  per  cent, 
were  on  the  grounds  of  alienage ;  3,877, 
or  0.34  per  cent,  were  on  religious 
grounds,  and  2,001,  or  0.17  per  cent,  were 
decided  on  grounds  of  moral  unfitness. 

The  state  having  the  highest  percent- 
age of  claims  allowed  was  Connecticut, 
and  the  lowest  was  Mississippi. 

Q. — What  percentage  of  men  are 
physically  fit? 

A. — Using  the  results  of  the  draft  law 
as  a  basis,  it  is  estimated  that  76.3  per 
cent  are  physically  fit.  Of  all  the  men 
called  for  physical  examination  by  the 
draft,  730,756,  or  23.7  per  cent,  were  re- 
jected on  account  of  physical  deficien- 
cies. 

Q. — Were  all  the  citizens  in  the 
first  draft  sent  to  the  camps  at 
once? 

A. — No.  They  were  sent  in  increments, 
and  early  in  1918  72,000  men  still  re- 
mained to  be  assigned  to  cantonments. 
The  full  strength  of  men  contemplated  in 
the  first  draft  was  687,000.  The  assign- 
ment of  the  full  quota  to  camps  was  fin- 
ished March,  1918. 

Q. — Did  the  draft  prove  country 
boys  superior  to  city  boys? 

A. — The  common  belief  that  the  aver- 
age of  physical  soundness  is  higher  among 
country  boys  than  among  the  city  bred  was 
not  supported  by  the  records  of  the  selec- 
tive draft. 

For  the  purpose  of  comparison,  selec- 
tion was  made  of  a  typical  set  of  cities 
of  40,000  to  500,000  population  distributed 
over  ten  different  states,  and  a  corres- 
ponding set  of  counties  of  the  same  total 
size,  located  in  the  same  states  and  con- 
taining no  city  of  30,000  population. 

The  total  number  of  registrants  in  the 
two  areas  was  315,000. 

The  comparison  resulted  as  follows :  Of 
35,017  registrants  in  urban  areas,  9,969 


were  rejected.  Of  44,462  registrants  from 
rural  areas,  12,432  were  rejected.  In 
other  words,  28.47  per  cent  of  the  city 
boys  were  rejected  against  27.96  per  cent 
of  the  country  boys. 

Q. — How    are    local    draft   boards 
compensated? 

A. — Section  195,  Selective  Service  Reg- 
ulation was  repealed  January  3oth,  1918, 
and  in  lieu  thereof  the  following  was 
promulgated  by  the  President :  Section  195 
(Amended)  Local  Boards — Compensa- 
tion : 

"The  rate  of  compensation  for  mem- 
bers of  local  boards  up  to  and  including 
the  completion  of  the  final  classification 
of  _the  registrants  within  the  respective 
jurisdiction  of  said  boards  shall  be  on  the 
basis  of  30  cents  as  aggregate  compensa- 
tion to  the  membership  of  a  local  board 
for  each  registrant  to  whom  a  question- 
naire shall  have  been  mailed  and  who 
shall  have  been  finally  classified  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  provisions  of  these 
regulations. 

"Money  due  for  said  work  shall  be  paid 
in  proportionate  amounts  to  each  member 
of  a  local  board  claiming  compensation 
for  his  service,  unless  it  shall  be  requested 
by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  local  board 
that  the  moneys  due  should  be  paid  in 
some  other  proportion.  In  such  case  no 
one  member  shall  receive  more  than  15 
cents  of  the  allowance  of  30  cents  for 
each  classification,  and  no  two  members 
shall  receive  more  than  25  cents  for  each 
classification  to  be  distributed  between 
them." 

Q. — What  was  the  cost  of  the  first 
selective  draft? 

A. — The  total  cost  of  the  first  selective 
draft  was  $5,211,965.38.  The  number  of 
registrants  was  9,586,508,  and  the  number 
of  men  called  for  examination  was  3,082,- 
949.  The  cost  per  man  called  was  $1.69. 
The  number  of  men  who  were  accepted 
was  1,057,363,  making  the  cost  per  man 
finally  accepted  $4.93. 

Q. — What  was   the   cost  of  Civil 
War  recruiting? 

A. — General  James  B.  Fry,  Provost 
Marshal  General,  in  a  report,  March  17, 
1866,  said  that  the  cost  of  recruiting  men 
in  the  Civil  War  was  $11,027,751.21  for 
168,649  men  drafted,  or  $9.84  per  man,  as 
against  the  cost  per  capita  of  the  1017 
selective  draft  $4.93,  making  the  Civil 
War  system  much  higher.  The  money 
value  of  Civil  War  days  also  was  much 
lower  than  now. 


The  Selective  Draft 


235 


Q. — Are  answers  made  by  draft 
registrants  open  to  public  in- 
spection? 

A. — The  answers  of  any  registrant  con- 
cerning the  condition  of  his  health,  men- 
tal or  physical,  in  response  to  Series  II 
of  the  questions  under  the  head  entitled 
"Physical  Fitness,"  in  the  Questionnaire, 
and  other  evidence  and  records  upon  the 
same  subject  and  the  answers  of  any  reg- 
istrant to  the  questions  under  Series  X 
of  the  questions  under  the  head  entitled 
"Dependency"  in  the  Questionnaire,  ex- 
cept the  names  and  addresses  of  the  per- 
sons claimed  to  be  dependent  upon  such 
registrant,  shall  not,  without  the  consent 
of  the  registrant,  be  open  to  inspection  by 
any  person  other  than  members  of  local 
and  district  boards,  examining  physicians, 
members  of  Medical  Advisory  Boards, 
Government  Appeal  Agents,  and  other 
persons  connected  with  the  administra- 
tion of  the  selective  service  law,  and 
United  States  Attorneys  and  their  assist- 
ants, and  officials  of  such  bureaus  or  de- 
partments of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment as  may  be  designated  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  War. 

Q. — May  a  man  subject  to  draft  go 
abroad? 

A. — If  a  person  is  subject  to  draft,  he 
does  not  need  a  passport  from  the  State 
Department,  if  he  wants  to  go  to  Canada. 
In  that  case  he  only  needs  a  "permit" 
from  a  local  board.  For  any  other  coun- 
try, he  must  apply  to  the  local  board  for 
a  permit.  The  local  board  investigates 
the  case.  If  the  person  is  not  likely  to 
be  called  within  the  period  of  the  pro- 
posed absence,  or  if  the  board  is  other- 
wise assured  that  favorable  action  will 
not  result  in  evasion  of  or  interference 
with  the  execution  of  the  law,  the  local 
board  takes  from  the  applicant  his  ad- 
dress while  absent  and  issues  a  permit, 
which,  if  approved  by  the  Provost  Mar- 
shal General,  entitles  him  to  a  passport 
from  the  State  Department. 

Q. — What  are  the  rules  as  to  phys- 
ical unfitness? 

A. — Physical  deficiencies  must  be  pres- 
ent in  such  degree  as  clearly  and  unmis- 
takably to  disqualify  the  man  for  mili- 
tary service.  Much  is  left  to  the  physi- 
cian's final  judgment  and  discretion. 

Temporary  effects  of  acute  disease  or 
of  an  injury  are  not  regarded  as  justi- 
fying a  finding  that  the  person  so  affected 
is  not  physically  qualified  for  military 
service.  Such  conditions  justify  a  rea- 


sonable delay  in  completing  the  physical 
examination  in  order  that  an  opportunity 
for  recovery  may  be  afforded.  If  the  de- 
ficiency is  of  such  a  nature  that  the  serv- 
ice in  the  army  will  improve  the  physi- 
cal condition  of  the  selected  man  in  gen- 
eral and  eliminate  the  deficiency,  the  man 
is  selected,  entrained,  and  put  into  such 
kind  of  service  as  best  fits  his  case. 

Q. — Can  a  drafted  man  demand 
that  he  be  sent  to  France? 

A. — No  registrant  under  the  provision 
of  the  selective  service  law  (and  no  vol- 
untary enlisted  man)  can  make  any  con- 
dition that  affects  his  service  after  he  has 
been  selected  or  after  he  has  been  ac- 
cepted for  entrainment.  The  United 
States  will  not  make  any  "proviso"  to 
send  any  soldier  or  sailor  anywhere  at  any 
time  stipulated  by  the  selected  man  or 
the  volunteer.  This  rule  applies  to  com- 
batant and  non-combatant  service  alike 
(for  instance  Red  Cross). 

Q. — How  long  after  war  will  draft- 
ed men  be  held? 

A. — It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  en- 
listed and  drafted  men  will  not  be  held 
any  longer  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States  than  is  necessary  for  the  safety 
of  the  country,  and  that  soldiers  and  sail- 
ors will  be  sent  home  as  quickly  as  de- 
mobilization can  be  effected  after  the  war. 
The  "Selective  Service  Law"  provides 
that  the  selected  men  shall  remain  liable 
only  four  months  after  the  conclusion  of 
peace. 

Q. — Are  skilled  technical  workers 
exempt  from  military  service? 

A. — There  are  circumstances  in  which 
the  need  of  military  establishments  for 
men  expert  or  highly  skilled  is  such  that 
the  national  interest  is  better  served  by 
selecting  such  men  into  military  service. 
The  engagement  in  industry  and  agricul- 
ture is  no  reason  for  exemption. 

Q. — Is  a  man  whose  wife  can  sup- 
port herself  and  children 
exempt  from  draft? 

A. — The  "Selective  Service  Law"  ex- 
empts no  person  from  military  service  on 
the  ground  of  dependency.  It  only  au- 
thorizes the  exclusion  or  discharge  from 
draft  of  "those  in  a  status  with  respect 
to  persons  dependent  upon  them  for  sup- 
port which  render?  their  exclusion  or 
discharge  advisable." 


236 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  can  a  person  under  age 
do  if  he  registers  by  mistake? 

A. — He  should  report  the  case  im- 
mediately to  the  local  board.  The  board 
will  investigate  the  claim  that  he  is  under 
age,  and,  if  he  is  right,  the  local  board 
is  empowered  to  discharge  him. 

Q. — Will  the  draft  boards  accept  a 
man  before  his  turn  comes? 

A. — The  men  to  be  ordered  into  mili- 
tary service  by  a  local  board  in  filling  any 
part  of  its  quota  are  to  be  selected  in  the 
order  of  their  liability  within  their  class 
as  shown  on  the  classification  list,  includ- 
ing non-combatants.  Any  registrant 
whose  order  number  is  so  early  that, 
though  not  within  the  early  part  of  the 
quota,  he  is  within  the  total  quota,  may 
make  application  to  the  local  board  to  be 
ordered  into  military  service  and  en- 
trained with  that  part  of  the  quota  of  the 
local  board  to  be  sent  next  after  such  ap- 
plication. 

If  the  granting  of  the  application 
would  increase  the  number  ordered  by  the 
Adjutant  General  to  be  entrained  by  more 
than  two  men,  the  application  will  be  de- 
nied. 

Q. — What  will  exempt  from  prose- 
cution a  man  who  failed  to 
register? 

A. — Being  at  sea  on  registration  day 
and  registering  as  soon  as  practical  after 
landing,  or  when  the  person  had  been 
refused  the  opportunity  to  register  by  the 
local  boards. 

Q. — Is  a  sailor  of  the  Lakes  mer- 
chant fleet  likely  to  be  draft- 
ed? 

A.— The  sailors  on  ships  plying  the 
Great  Lakes  come  under  Class  IV.  They 
are,  therefore,  far  removed  from  the  first 
call.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
grain-carriers  on  the  Great  Lakes  are  in- 
dispensable for  the  feeding  of  the  nation, 
and  their  crews  are  employed  in  a  voca- 
tion necessary  to  the  pursuance  of  the 
war. 

Q. — Who  are  subject  to  the  second 
call? 

A. — The  second  summons  to  service 
under  the  Selective  Service  Act  of  May 
18,  1917,  was  issued  by  the  President  in 
November,  1917.  No  change  was  made 
in  the  essential  obligations  of  the  men 
who  were,  on  June  5,  subject  to  selec- 
tion. 


Q. — Is  a  drafted  man  regarded  as 
a  deserter  if  he  fails  to  report 
for  the  camps? 

A. — Persons  who  are  selected  for  mili- 
tary service  and  who  absent  themselves 
with  an  intent  to  evade  military  service 
are  deserters. 

They  are  reported  to  the  police  authori- 
ties and,  if  caught,  are  brought  before 
the  local  board,  which  decides  if  the  of- 
fense was  willful  or  not.  If  not  willful, 
the  selected  man  is  sent  to  a  camp  and 
the  commanding  officers  of  the  camp  fur- 
nished with  all  details  of  the  case.  If 
the  offense  is  considered  willful,  the  de- 
serter becomes  subject  to  the  military 
laws  of  the  United  States. 

Q. — How  are  drafted  men  sent  to 
the  camps? 

A. — Local  boards  procure  one  "party 
ticket"  for  the  number  of  men  who  are  to 
be  sent.  A  leader  is  provided  for  the 
party.  He  keeps  in  his  personal  posses- 
sion the  railroad  and  meal  tickets  of  the 
party.  He  accompanies  the  conductor 
through  the  train,  identifies  the  men  of 
his  party  and,  before  delivering  the  ticket 
to  the  railroad  agent  or  conductor,  must 
indorse  the  ticket  as  to  the  correct  num- 
ber of  the  men  to  whom  transportation 
is  furnished. 

The  leader  is  responsible  for  the  proper 
feeding  of  the  party,  and  may  not  allow 
liquor  to  be  sold  to  any  of  his  men.  Be- 
fore arrival  at  a  mobilization  camp  he 
must  inspect  them  to  see  that  they  are 
ready  to  leave  the  train,  and  that  each 
man  has  attached  to  his  lapel  the  badge 
given  to  him  before  starting.  On  arrival 
at  the  camp,  the  leader  must  hold  his  own 
group  together  until  they  are  taken  in 
charge  by  an  officer  or  a  non-commis- 
sioned officer,  in  whose  hands  he  must 
safely  deliver  the  mobilization  papers  of 
each  and  all  of  his  men. 

Q. — How  does  the  Government 
find  out  about  a  drafted  man  in 
a  foreign  country? 

A. — Either  before  or  upon  receiving  a 
notice  to  report  for  physical  examination, 
a  registrant  residing  in  a  foreign  country 
in  a  place  too  far  for  a  journey  to  the 
United  States  may,  at  his  own  expense, 
apply  by  mail,  cable  or  telegram  to  be 
physically  examined  by  a  nearby  physi- 
sian  appointed  by  the  American  Consul 
to  make  the  examination.  The  consul 
must  indorse  his  appointment  upon  the 
face  of  a  "Form"  sent  to  him  by  the  local 
board  in  the  United  States  residence  of 


The  Selective  Draft 


237 


the  applicant.  The  examination  is  made, 
the  physician  signs  a  detailed  report,  and 
the  local  board  decides  as  to  the  physical 
qualifications  of  the  registrant. 

Q. — Can  a  man  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  a  district  board? 

A. — The  decision  of  the  district  board 
is,  in  ordinary  circumstances,  final.  ^A 
person  may  appeal  to  the  President  in  in- 
dustrial and  agricultural  cases,  when  the 
appeal  is  accompanied  by  the  written  and 
signed  recommendation  of  one  member 
of  the  local  board,  and  either  the  Gov- 
ernment Appeal  Agent  or  the  Adjutant 
General  of  the  State. 

In  dependency  cases,  the  appeal  must  be 
accompanied  by  a  signed  statement  of 
one  member  of  the  local  board  and  either 
the  Government  Appeal  Agent  or  an  Ad- 
jutant General  of  the  State  certifying  that 
the  case  is  one  of  great  and  unusual  hard- 
ship, stating  the  circumstances  of  hard- 
ship that  will  follow  the  going  of  the 
registrant  into  military  service,  and  spe- 
cifically recommending  a  reconsideration 
of  the  case. 

The  claim  is  examined  first  by  the 
local  board  as  to  the  compliance  with  the 
above  rules,  after  which  the  local  board 
forwards  the  claim  to  the  Provost  Mar- 
shal General.  The  President  may  rule, 
upon  record  of  the  case,  that  the  appeal 
shall  operate  as  a  stay  of  induction  Into 
military  service,  pending  further  orders. 

Q. — How  is  any  insufficient  quota 
filled? 

A. — Immediately  after  the  time  of  en- 
trainment  the  local  board  must  proceed 
to  call  and  entrain  a  sufficient  _  number 
of  selected  men  to  fill  the  deficiency,  if 
any,  in  its  quota. 

Upon  receipt  of  notice  from  the  mobi- 
lization camp  that  any  selected  men  of 
the  contingent  of  a  local  board  have 
been  rejected,  or,  though  entrained,  have 
failed  to  reach  such  camp,  the  local 
board  proceeds  to  call  and  entrain  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  selected  men  to  fill  va- 
cancies in  its  quota.  Men  sent  to  fill 
deficiencies  get  at  least  24  hours'  notice 
to  appear  for  entrainment. 

Q. — Are  feeble-minded  persons  ex- 
empt? 

A. — There  are  various  degrees  of 
feeble-mindedness.  The  Selective  Serv- 
ice Law  says  that  "lack  of  normal 
understanding"  is  a  cause  for  rejection. 
What  is  meant  by  normal  understanding 


is  left  in  each  case  to  the  discretion  of  the 
examining  physicians. 

Insanity,  epilepsy,  and  organic  nervous 
diseases  are  causes  of  rejection. 

Q. — Do  men  with  bad  teeth  need 
to  serve  under  the  draft? 

A.— A  man  must  have  at  least  eight 
serviceable,  natural  masticating  molars, 
four  above  and  four  below  opposing,  and 
six  serviceable  natural  incisors,  three 
above  and  three  below  opposing.  These 
teeth  must  be  so  opposed  that  a  person 
can  cut  his  food  and  chew  it. 

Teeth  restored  by  crown  or  fixed  bridge 
work,  when  such  work  is  well  placed  and 
thoroughly  serviceable,  are  considered  as 
serviceable  natural  teeth. 

If  dental  work  will  restore  the  teeth  to 
meet  the  requirements  outlined  in  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph,  the  man  will  be  ac- 
cepted and  sent  to  his  cantonment,  where 
dental  work  needed  by  him  will  be  car- 
ried out. 

Q. — Is  a  man  previously  rejected 
by  the  Regular  Army  exempt? 

A. — Previous  physical  examinations  are 
not  considered  valid  in  any  case  where 
the  Selective  Service  Law  is  involved. 

Q. — How  about  defective  eyesight? 

A. — In  this  case,  the  local  board  can 
rule  that  eyeglasses  will  correct  the  de- 
ficiency in  vision.  Men  may  be  accepted, 
whose  vision  is  20/100  or  better  in  each 
eye,  correctable  by  appropriate  lenses  to 
20/40  or  better  in  at  least  one  eye,  pro- 
vided no  organic  disease  exists  in  either 
eye. 

Q. — Which    officials    are    exempt 
from  draft? 

A. — The  Secretary  to  the  President, 
heads  of  divisions  of  the  various  depart- 
ments of  the  government,  members  of 
Presidential  boards,  Interstate  Commis- 
sions, Civil  Service  Commission,  Federal 
Reserve  Board,  Federal  Trade  Commis- 
sion, Panama  Canal  Chief  Officers,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  the 
Public  Printer,  Officers  of  the  National 
Homes  for  Disabled  Volunteers,  Direc- 
tor General  of  the  Pan-American  Union, 
Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  Sen- 
ators, Secretary,  Sergeant-at-Arms,  and 
Chaplain  of  the  Senate. 

Representatives,  Territorial  Delegates, 
Resident  Commissioners,  Clerk,  Door- 
keeper, Sergeant-at-Arms,  Postmaster  and 


238 


Questions  and  Answers 


Chaplain  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
the  Superintendent  of  the  Capitol. 

Librarian  and  the  Superintendent  of 
Buildings  and  Grounds  of  the  Library  of 
Congress. 

Judges,  Clerks,  Marshals  and  Reporters 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Court  of 
Claims,  Court  of  Customs  Appeals,  Cir- 
cuit Courts  of  Appeals,  District  Courts. 

Q. — Can  a  man  be  exempted  on  re- 
ligious grounds? 

A. — Any  registrant  found  by  a  local 
board  to  be  a  member  of  any  well-recog- 
nized religious  sect  or  organization,  jor- 
ganized  and  existing  May  18,  1917,  whose 
then  existing  creed  or  principles  forbid 
its  members  to  participate  in  war  in  any 
form,  and  whose  religious  convictions  are 
against  war  or  participation  therein  in 
accordance  with  the  creed  or  principles  of 
said  religious  organizations,  may  be  fur- 
nished by  the  local  board  with  a  certifi- 
cate to  that  effect  and  he  can  be  required 
to  serve  only  in  a  capacity  declared  by 
the  President  to  be  non-combatant. 

Q. — Can  a  farmer  claim  exemp- 
tion from  draft? 

A. — Any  registrant  found  to  be  engaged 
in  a  "necessary"  agricultural  enterprise, 
and  found  to  be  "necessary"  to  such  en- 
terprise in  the  capacity  of  sole  managing, 
controlling,  and  directing  head  of  the  en- 
terprise, may  be  exempted. 

Q. — Will  the  draft  law  continue  in 
effect  after  peace  is  made? 

A. — The  "Selective  Service  Law" 
(draft  law)  is  framed  only  "for  the  pe- 
riod of  the  war."  The  men  selected  are 
liable  for  that  period,  and  for  four 
months  after  peace  is  signed. 

Q. — Is  an  alien  who  has  taken  out 
his  first  citizenship  papers  sub- 
ject to  draft? 

A.— By  the  Act  entitled:  "An  Act  to 
authorize  the  President  to  increase  tem- 
porarily the  Military  Establishment  of 
the  United  States,"  approved  May  18, 
1917,  the  President  was  authorized  "to 
draft  into  the  Military  Service  of  the 
United  States,  all  male  citizens  or  male 
persons,  not  alien  enemies,  who  have  de- 
clared their  intention  to  become  citizens, 
between  the  ages  of  21  and  30  years, 
both  inclusive."  This  authorizes  the 
drafting  of  all  aliens  other  than  German 
and  Austrian. 


Q. — Are  alien  enemies  exempt  from 
registration? 

A. — Many  persons  confuse  registration 
with  draft.  Each  is  a  distinct  process. 
Exemptions  are  granted  after  draft  and 
not  before.  Even  convicts  and  alien  ene- 
mies (both  of  whom  are  exempt  from 
draft)  are  obliged  to  register.  There  are 
no  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  all  male 
persons  in  the  United  States  between  the 
ages  of  21  and  30  inclusive  must  register, 
except  those  already  in  the  Federal  Mili- 
tary or  Naval  Service. 

Q. — What  was  the  Alien  Draft 
Bill? 

A. — It  was  a  bill  introduced  by  Senator 
Chamberlain  in  1917  to  draft  into  the 
Army  aliens  resident  in  the  United  States, 
and  it  was  in  response  to  a  general  de- 
mand that  British,  French,  Italian  and 
other  subjects  of  the  Allied  Powers  be 
obliged  to  give  military  service  as  Amer- 
ican citizens  did. 

The  bill  was  not  pressed,  because  the 
State  Department  feared  that  it  might 
lead  to  a  great  dispute  about  treaties,  and 
impel  Allied  Powers  to  impress  Ameri- 
cans then  resident  in  their  territories. 
The  State  Department,  however,  immedi- 
ately began  diplomatic  negotiations  with 
the  Allies. 

Q. — Was  it  intended  to  impress 
Germans  and  Austrians  to 
fight  their  countries? 

A. — No.  Such  a  suggestion  was  never 
even  entertained.  They  were  specifically 
excepted  in  the  bill,  and  a  clause  pro- 
vided that  they  might  be  drafted  for  non- 
combatant  work  only.  The  chief  purpose 
was  to  draft  those  Nationals  on  whose 
side  the  United  States  was  fighting. 

Q. — Were  there  so  many  of  these 
aliens? 

A.— Senator  Chamberlain  estimated  that 
the  bill  would  bring  iJ4  million  men  into 
the  service. 

Q. — Did  the  Allied  governments  do 
anything  about  these  "Slack- 
ers"? 

A. — The  British  authorities  acted  cir- 
cumspectly and  skilfully.  They  issued  a 
great  many  cleverly  worded  declarations, 
which  voiced  the  conviction  that  all  Brit- 
ish subjects  would  gladly  volunteer,  but 
which  also  hinted  positively  that  if  they 
failed  to  do  so  they  would  be  drafted. 


The  Selective  Draft 


239 


Q. — Could  the  United  States  not 
compel  them  to  serve? 

A. — Not  under  existing  treaties.  The 
Administration,  however,  realized  from 
the  beginning  that  the  American  people, 
subject  to  the  draft  themselves,  would  ob- 
ject strongly  to  immunity  of  Allied  sub- 
jects, and  diplomatic  negotiations  began 
at  once  with  the  Allied  governments. 

Q. — Were  agreements  made  finally 
to  draft  them? 

A. — The  conclusion  of  an  agreement 
with  Great  Britain  and  Canada  was  an- 
nounced January  30,  1918,  through  a  let- 
ter written  by  the  Secretary  of  State  to 
Vice-President  Marshall  as  President  of 
the  Senate.  The  important  provision  of 
this  agreement  was  that  subjects  of  Great 
Britain  or  Canada  were  to  have  a  stated 
time  in  which  they  might  return  to  their 
own  countries  to  serve.  If  they  remained 
in  this  country  beyond  that  time  they 
would  come  under  American  draft  regu- 
lations. 

Q. — Can  America  draft  British  sub- 
jects even  if  outside  American 
age  limits? 

A. — Yes.  By  the  American-British 
agreement,  it  was  provided  that  British 
subjects  drafted  by  the  United  States 
should  be  drafted  between  the  British 
limits,  which  take  in  men  of  twenty  and 
men  up  to  forty-one  years  old,  while  the 
American  age  limit  is  from  twenty-one 
up  to  thirty  years. 

Q. — How  many  British  subjects  in 
America  had  not  volunteered 
in  1917? 

A. — It  was  estimated  by  various  British 
authorities  late  in  1917  that  there  were 
about  200,000  British  subjects  in  the 
United  States  who  would  come  under  the 
draft. 

Q. — Are  women  alien  enemies? 

A. — The  term  "alien  enemy,"  as  at  pres- 
ent denned  by  statute,  includes  all  na- 
tives, citizens,  denizens,  or  subjects  of  a 
foreign  nation  or  government  with  which 
war  has  been  declared,  being  males  of  the 
age  of  fourteen  years  and  upward  who 
shall  be  within  the  United  States  and  not 
actually  naturalized  as  American  citizens. 

Females  are  not  alien  enemies  within 
the  present  statutory  definition ;  but  a  re- 
cent regulation  under_  the  Espionage  Act 
has  extended  its  provisions  to  them. 


Q. — Is  an  alien  who  has  taken  out 
first  citizenship  papers  classed 
as  an  alien  enemy? 

A. — The  Department  of  Justice  author- 
izes the  statement  under  the  definition  of 
alien  enemy,  Section  3:  "A  male  native, 
citizen,  denizen  or  subject  of  a  foreign 
nation  or  government  with  which  war 
has  been  declared  is  an  alien  enemy,  even 
though  he  has  declared  his  intention  to 
become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  by 
taking  out  first  papers  of  naturalization 
or  has  been  partly  or  completely  natural- 
ized in  any  country  other  than  the  United 
States."  Thus  a  German  who  had,  let 
us  say,  become  a  citizen  of  Mexico  (a 
neutral  country)  would  still  be  consid- 
ered an  alien  enemy. 

Q. — What  is  the  best  way  to  send 
presents  to  France? 

A. — Money  may  be  sent  at  domestic 
rates,  payable  at  a  "United  States  Mail 
Agency  in  France."  In  drawing  order 
the  office  of  payment  should  be  desig- 
nated as  "U.  S.  Army  Postal  Service," 
and  in  the  coupon  the  name  of  the  payee 
should  be  followed  on  the  next  line  by 
the  regiment  and  company,  or  other  or- 
ganization to  which  the  payee  belongs. 

All  articles  admissible  to  the  domestic 
parcel  post  may  be  sent  to  the  Expedi- 
tionary Forces  overseas,  if  carefully 
packed  and  properly  addressed,  and  if 
they  do  not  include  intoxicants,  poisons, 
inflammable  articles  (including  friction 
matches),  or  compositions  which  may  kill 
or  injure  another  or  damage  the  mails. 

Regimental  commanders  must  endorse 
requests  for  transmission  of  parcels. 

Q. — How  does  America  protect  its 
soldiers  financially? 

A. — The  government  provides  a  com- 
pensation of  $25  a  month  to  the  wife 
(during  widowhood),  child,  or  widowed 
mother  of  any  man  killed  or  permanently 
disabled  in  the  line  of  duty. 

In  addition,  Congress  authorized,  on 
October  6,  1917,  the  offering  of  insur- 
ance, secured  by  the  government,  to  all 
officers,  enlisted  men,  and  members  of 
the  nurse  corps  in  the  Army  and  Navy 
who  should  apply  before  February  12, 
1918  (this  time  being  afterwards  ex- 
tended to  April  I2th) — or  within  120  days 
after  enlistment. 

Q. — Are  all  soldiers  eligible  to  gov- 
ernment insurance? 

A.— This  bill  makes  all  officers  and  men 
in  both  branches  of  the  service  eligible. 


240 


Questions  and  Answers 


The  policies  range  from  $1,000  to  $10,000, 
and  the  age  limit  is  15  to  65.  The  prem- 
ium is  based  on  age ;  a  man  of  30  on  a 
$1,000  policy  pays  69  cents  a  month,  etc. 
The  policy  is  payable  in  monthly  instal- 
ments to  the  insured,  if  wholly  disabled, 
and  to  the  heirs,  at  his  death. 

Q. — What  are  the  Government  In- 
surance provisions  ? 

A. — Annual  renewable  term  insurance 
for  the  period  of  the  war,  with  the  option 
of  changing  to  some  other  form  within 
five  years  after  the  close  of  the  war.  It 
was  not  attachable  or  assignable. 

Each  $1,000  gave  $5.75  a  month  for  20 
years  to  the  beneficiary — who  might  be 
wife,  husband,  child,  grandchild,  brother, 
sister,  adopted  brother  or  sister,  step- 
brother or  sister,  parent,  grandparent, 
step-parent  or  parent-in-law. 

The  amount  taken  could  be  from  $1,000 
to  $10,000,  the  premium  ranging  from  65 


cents  a  month  for  each  $1,000  at  the  age 
of  21,  to  70  cents  at  31,  82  cents  at  41, 
and  so  on. 

Q. — Was  protection  limited  to  in- 
juries in  line  of  duty? 

A.— No.  It  was  unlimited  by  any  such 
provision.  Even  those  who  might  leave 
the  service  could  still  carry  it — with  the 
condition  that  within  five  years  after  the 
close  of  the  war  they  must  change  to  an- 
other form. 

Q. — Did  the  men  take  advantage 
of  the  insurance  offer? 

A.— They  did  so  enthusiastically  that 
by  February  i8th  over  a  million  men  had 
been  insured  for  a  total  of  $8,879,104,000; 
and  the  indications  were  that  the  entire 
military  force  would  improve  upon  the 
unheard-of  record  already  made  of  being 
nearly  90  per  cent  insured  for  the  max- 
imum amount. 


CONSCRIPTION  ABROAD 


Q. — When  was  conscription  adopt- 
ed in  the  German  Empire? 

A. — The  German  Empire  has  always  had 
conscription,  but  this  Empire  did  not 
come  into  existence  until  1871.  Prussia 
adopted  conscription  early  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  and  Napoleon  was  directly 
responsible  for  her  action.  After  the  bat- 
tle of  Jena,  where  the  Prussian  power  was 
utterly  broken  by  the  French,  Napoleon 
endeavored  to  crush  Prussia  altogether, 
and  limited  her  to  a  standing  army  ^of 
42,000  men,  besides  imposing  heavy  in- 
demnities. The  arrangement  concerning 
the  army  was  cleverly  taken  advantage  of 
by  the  famous  Generals  Scharnhorst  and 
Gneisenau.  They  kept,  it  is  true,  a  stand- 
ing army  of  only  42,000  men,  but  the  per- 
sonnel was  changed  continually.  Directly 
one  lot  was  trained  they  were  disbanded 
and  passed  into  the  reserves  and  another 
lot  entered  the  army.  This  method  was 
known  as  the  Krumper  system,  and  is 
practically  conscription  as  it  is  known  to- 
day. 

Q. — Is    German   conscription   uni- 
versal? 

A. — By  law,  every  able-bodied  man  is 
liable  for  military  service  in,  Germany. 
In  practice,  however,  as  there  are  in  or- 
dinary times  far  more  young  men  than 
are  actually  wanted,  a  big  percentage  does 
not  serve  at  all.  It  is  said  that  2,000,000 
of  these  untrained  men  volunteered  for 
active  service  during  the  first  month  of 
the  war.  By  passing  an  examination,  any 
German  can  have  his  training  cut  down 
from  two  years  to  one.  That  is  to  say,  a 
well-educated  German  seldom  serves  for 
more  than  twelve  months  consecutively. 
Roughly,  of  the  able-bodied  men  avail- 
able, 50  per  cent  never  enter  the  army 
at  all.  Of  the  remainder  who  are  con- 
scripted, 20  per  cent  serve  for  one  year, 
and  80  per  cent  for  two. 

Q. — Is   the   position   the  same  in 
France? 

A. — No.  Practically  every  available 
man  receives  military  training,  and,  under 
the  new  law,  brought  in  just  before  the 
present  struggle  began,  every  one  must 
serve  for  three  years  with  the  army  in- 
stead of  for  two  as  formerly.  France, 
in  fact,  far  more  fulfils  the  description 
of  "a  nation  in  arms"  than  does  Ger- 
many. 


Q. — How  long  must  a  German 
serve? 

A. — Two  years  with  the  army  in  the 
ranks  and  five  in  the  reserve.  During  the 
period  of  reserve  the  soldier  is  still  re- 
garded as  belonging  to  his  corps,  and 
is  obliged  to  join  it  twice  during  the  five 
years.  The  duration  of  training  during 
the  entire  period  is  limited  by  law  to 
eight  weeks,  but  in  practice  is  seldom 
more  than  six.  After  the  five  years  are 
up  the  soldier  joins  the  first  "ban"  of 
the  Landivehr,  or  Second  Line  Army. 
While  in  the  first  "ban,"  he  is  twice  called 
out  for  training  for  from  eight  to  four- 
teen days  on  each  occasion.  Five  years 
after  entering  it  he  leaves  the  first  "ban," 
and  joins  the  second  "ban,"  where  he  re- 
mains until  he  is  39.  Finally,  he  passes 
into  the  Landsturm,  and  at  45  passes  out 
of  military  control  altogether. 

Q. — Are  all  the  men  in  the  Land- 
Sturm  trained? 

A. — No.  Only  those  who  at  39  enter 
it  from  the  Landwehr.  It  also  contains 
all  the  men  from  the  ages  of  20  to  45, 
who  have  received  no  military  training 
at  all.  These  amount  to  50  per  cent  of 
the  fit  men  of  military  age, 

Q. — In  what  countries,  before  the 
outbreak  of  the  war,  was  con- 
scription in  force? 

A. — In  all  European  countries  except 
Great  Britain.  The  only  one,  however, 
which  had  really  universal  conscription 
was  France,  where  practically  the  only 
exemptions  granted  were  to  those  physi- 
cally unfit.  In  Germany  not  half  the 
available  men  were  conscripted.  In  Rus- 
sia the  supply  far  exceeded  requirements, 
and  many  special  exemptions  were 
granted.  In  Holland,  selection  from  those 
available  is  made  by  lot.  Somewhat  the 
same  system  is  adopted  in  Sweden.  Swit- 
zerland and  Norway  have  a  scheme  sim- 
ilar to  the  Australian ;  in  fact,  the  Com- 
monwealth Defence  Act,  providing  for 
the  training  of  cadets,  was,  to  some  ex- 
tent, based  upon  the  Swiss  plan.  In  the 
Balkan  States  there  are  comparatively  few 
exemptions,  most  of  the  available  men 
being  obliged  to  serve  in  the  army.  In 
Italy,  although  all  men  are  liable,  only 
about  a  third  receive  two  years'  mili- 
tary training.  In  Spain  there  are  many 


241 


242 


Questions  and  Answers 


exemptions,  and  a  money  payment  in  lieu 
of  active  service  is  permitted.  The  same 
system  exists  in  Portugal. 

Q. — When  was  conscription  adopt- 
ed in  France? 

A. — During  the  French  Revolution  the 
principle  was  adopted.  On  July  1 1,  1792, 
every  able-bodied  man  was  ordered  to 
consider  himself  liable  for  active  serv- 
ice, but  the  enforcing  of  the  law  was  so 
imperfect  that  barely  60,000  were  gained. 
It  was  not  until  August  of  the  following 
year  that  real  conscription  was  forced 
on  the  country.  All  able-bodied  men  be- 
tween 1 8  and  25  were  compelled  to  serve. 
No  exemptions  whatever  were  granted. 
In  1798  the  law  was  modified  to  include 
only  the  able-bodied  between  the  ages  of 
20  and  25,  and  the  right  of  exemption  by 
payment  of  a  substitute  was  conceded. 
This  scheme  remained  in  force  until  the 
Franco-Prussian  War  of  1870,  after  which 
the  Prussian  method  was  adopted. 

Q. — How  many  young  men  does 
France  call  to  the  colors  every 
year? 

A. — Compulsory  military  service  begins 
at  21,  and  about  320,000  men  have  to  re- 
port themselves  on  reaching  that  age 
every  year.  Of  these,  about  33,000  failed 
(in  peace  time)  to  pass  the  medical  ex- 
ination.  About  25,000  enlisted  voluntar- 
ily, 70,000  were  put  back  for  re-examina- 
tion, and  about  160,000  were  incorporated 
in  the  army. 

Q. — Is  conscription  in  force  in  any 
country  outside  Europe? 

A. — In  Japan,  in  Australia  (for  home 
defense),  in  New  Zealand,  in  the  Union 
of  South  Africa  (in  a  modified  form), 
in  Turkey,  and  in  several  of  the  South 
American  Republics.  In  Peru  the  num- 
bers are  obtained  by  ballot,  and  exemption 
can  be  purchased.  In  Chile  there  are  few 
exemptions  allowed.  The  army  there  has 
been  trained  by  German  officers.  In  Ar- 
gentine, service  in  the  military  is  com- 
pulsory, but  the  majority  train  for  three 
months  only. 

Q. — How  long  had  conscription 
been  in  force  in  Russia? 

A. — It  was  introduced  in  1874,  after  the 
Franco-Prussian  War.  At  first  a  six- 
years'  service  was  required,  but  this  had 
been  reduced  to  three  in  the  infantry  and 
to  four  in  the  cavalry  and  artillery. 
There  were  many  exemptions,  however. 


Q. — Were  the  French  on  Gallipoli 
conscripts  or  volunteers? 

A. — They  would  certainly  have  been 
conscripts,  though  some  of  them  may 
have  been  conscripted  men  who  volun- 
teered for  that  particular  campaign.  That 
is  to  say,  volunteers  may  have  been  called 
for,  and  may  have  offered  from  various 
regiments ;  but  the  numbers  required 
would  have  been  obtained  in  any  case 
whether  there  were  volunteers  or  not. 
You  are  probably  thinking  of  the  French 
Colonial  Army,  which  is  recruited  by  vol- 
untary enlistment.  In  times  of  peace,  27,- 
500  men  of  this  army  are  permanently 
maintained  in  France.  In  addition,  18,- 
ooo  French  soldiers  of  this  army  are  in 
the  colonies,  and  35,000  native  troops. 
Algeria  is  garrisoned  by  40,000  men  of 
the  regular  or  "conscript"  army,  and  27,- 
ooo  native  conscripted  troops. 

Q. — How  has  Australia  voted  on 
conscription? 

A. — The  first  referendum  on  conscrip- 
tion was  held  in  October,  1916.  The  ma- 
jority against  conscription  was  61,000. 
The  second  referendum  was  held  on  Dec. 
20,  1917,  and  resulted  in  a  vote  of  1,013,- 
ooo  for  and  1,178,000  against,  the  ma- 
jority against  conscription  being  165,000. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  German  school- 
boys are  forced  to  take  long 
route  marches? 

A. — The  military  authorities  have  noth- 
ing whatever  to  do  with  German  boys. 
They  do  not  exert  as  much  authority  over 
school-pupils,  in  fact,  as  is  exerted  under 
the  Australian  system.  In  Australia  a 
boy  has  to  register  himself  for  military 
training  when  he  is  13,  and  he  remains 
in  effect,  if  not  in  deed,  subject  to  mili- 
tary control  until  he  reaches  the  age  of 
60.  In  Germany  conscription  begins  only 
when  the  youth  reaches  the  age  of  20. 

Q. — Then  why  do  we  hear  of  boys 
of  17  and  even  16  in  the 
trenches? 

A. — There  probably  are  few  of  16. 
There  may  be  a  few  of  17,  and,  no  doubt, 
there  are  numbers  of  18  years  old.  But, 
as  the  German  Army  laws  have  not  been 
changed,  it  is  altogether  likely  that  these 
youthful  soldiers  have  not  been  con- 
scripted, but  have  volunteered  for  serv- 
ice. It  is  true  that  liability  (Wehrpflicht) 
begins  at  the  age  of  17,  and  ends  at  45, 
but  actual  service  (Heerpflicht)  begins  at 
20.  When  he  is  twenty  every  man  re- 


Conscription  Abroad 


243 


ceives  a  notice  from  the  military  order- 
ing him  to  report  himself  at  such  and  such 
a  place  at  specified  time.  He  is  then  ex- 
amined medically,  and  drafted  into  the 
army,  put  back  for  a  year  for  re-examina- 
tion at  the  end  of  twelve  months,  or 
passed  definitely  into  the  Landsturm, 
where  he  receives  no  military  training  at 
all. 

Q. — Are  all  able-bodied  persons 
liable  to  serve  for  the  defense 
of  Australia? 

A. — Yes.  They  are  called  up  in  classes, 
as  follows : 

Class  I. — All  men  from  18  to  34  who 
are  unmarried. 

Class  II. — All  men  from  35  to  44  who 
are  unmarried. 

Class  III.— All  men  from  18  to  34  who 
are  married. 

Class  IV. — All  men  from  35  to  44  who 
are  married. 

Class  V. — All  men,  married  or  single, 
from  45  to  59. 

Q. — What  classes  are  exempt  un- 
der the  Universal  Service  Act 
in  Australia? 

A. — The  Commonwealth  Universal 
Service  Act,  which  was  in  force  before 
the  war  began,  compels  every  male  be- 
tween the  ages  of  12  and  25  to  attend 
a  certain  number  of  drills  per  year,  and 
to  spend  a  certain  number  of  days  in 
camp.  Every  male  is  liable  for  service, 
within  Australia,  up  to  the  age  of  60. 
Those  exempt  are:  The  medically  unfit 
(the  examination  is  not  at  all  severe)  ; 
members  of  Parliament  (State  and  Fed- 
eral) ;  ministers  of  religion;  judges  (Fed- 
eral and  State)  ;  police,  special  and  sti- 
pendiary magistrates ;  doctors,  conscien- 
tious objectors,  persons  not  of  European 
origin  or  descent.  The  last  three  groups 
can,  however,  be  called  to  render  service 
of  a  non-combatant  nature. 

Q. — How  many  Australians  of  en- 
listment age  are  unmarried? 

A. — When  the  census  was  taken  there 
were  approximately  477,000  unmarried 
men  in  the  Commonwealth  between  the 
ages  of  18  and  45- 

Q. — What  is  the  conscription  age 
in  Great  Britain  ? 

A. — In  the  new  act  the  ages  are  fixed 
between  18  and  40  inclusive.  Men  who 
attain  18  after  the  act  was  passed  have 


to  serve,  and  men  under  40  years  and 
eleven  months  old  are  also  liable.  That 
is  to  say,  every  man  who  had  not  turned 
41  within  30  days  of  the  passing  of  the 
act  must  become  a  soldier. 

Q. — What  is  the  number  of  men 
who  voluntarily  enlisted  in 
Great  Britain? 

A. — It  does  not  appear  that  the  figure 
ever  has  been  given.  It  was  generally  as- 
sumed that  before  the  Derby  scheme  was 
tried,  some  2,600,000  had  volunteered. 
When  Lord  Derby  began  his  campaign, 
he  calculated  that  there  were  5,000,000 
men  left  between  the  ages  of  18  and  41. 
This  total  included  men  who  had  joined 
the  navy,  men  who  had  been  discharged 
from  the  army^and  from  the  navy,  those 
who  were  physically  unfit,  those  who  had 
died  since  the  register  was  taken,  minis- 
ters of  religion,  and  others  who  had  not 
thought  it  necessary  to  go  into  a  recruit- 
ing office.  The  Derby  volunteers  appear 
to  have  numbered  215,000;  2,000,000  men 
attested,  428,000  were  rejected  as  medi- 
cally unfit,  and  1,600,000  were  in  "starred" 
trades.  According  to  the  published  fig- 
ures, 2,700,000  were  unaccounted  for.  It 
was  estimated  at  the  time  that  conscrip- 
tion of  the  unmarried — which  was  the  first 
measure  tried — would  bring  in  only  some 
200,000  men. 

Q. — How  many  Australians  are 
within  the  enlistment  age  (18- 
45)? 

No.  of 

Total      enlistment 
State  males.  age. 

N.    S.   W 857,698  376,000 

Victoria    655,591  268,000 

Queensland    .......     329,506  145,500 

South    Australia    . .     207,358  90,500 

West  Australia 161,565  80,700 

Tasmania  97,591  38,800 


Total 2,309,309 


999,500 

These  are  the  figures  from  the  last  cen- 
sus— 1911. 

Q. — Did  conscientious  objectors 
ever  receive  any  consideration 
in  conscript  countries? 

A. — No.  They  do  not  receive  any  at 
all ;  that  is  why  people  who  have  strong 
feelings  in  this  matter  have  gone  to  Eng- 
land and  to  the  United  States,  countries 
which  did  not  compel  everyone  to  serve 
in  the  army.  During  the  American  Civil 
War,  when  conscription  was  adopted  by 


244 


Questions  and  Answers 


the  North,  the  Quakers,  who  had  origi- 
nally come  to  America  in  order  to  avoid 
persecution  in  England,  were  very  harshly 
treated,  and  had  to  suffer  as  they  have  so 
often  suffered  elsewhere  for  their  prin- 
ciples. 

Q. — How  were  conscientious  ob- 
jectors regarded  in  England? 

A.— The  Times  (London),  no  doubt, 
expresses  the  view  of  many  people,  and 
it  is  interesting  to  follow  the  change  that 
has  come  over  it: 

"The  essence  of  freedom,  as  we  know 
it  and  value  it,  is  that  the  individuals 
of  a  nation  shall  be  able  to  think  what 
they  believe  to  be  true,  and  to  do  what 
they  believe  to  be  right." — Times  lead- 
ing article,  November  21,  1914. 

"In  war,  even  more  than  in  peace,  there 
is  need  for  the  free  play  of  intelligence, 
for  the  free  exercise  of  conscience." — 
Times,  Literary  Supplement,  April,  1915. 

"The  third  stage  is  to  make  conscien- 
tious objectors  ineligible  for  the  franchise 
and  for  public  office.  It  seems  to  us  to 
be  a  measure  of  simple  justice  that  those 
who  refuse  to  recognize  the  citizen's  first 
duty  should  be  excluded  also  from  their 
privileges  as  citizens." — Times,  July  6, 
1916. 

The  Manchester  Guardian  better  sets 
forth  the  way  in  which  the  conscientious 
objector  should  be  regarded: 

"The  final  test  of  sincerity  is  the  will- 
ingness to  face  consequences,  and  the 
supreme  test  the  perseverance  to  death. 
The  conscientious  objector  has  been 
mocked  and  flouted  as  a  slacker  and  a 
coward.  We  think  him  a  mistaken  man, 
but  we  have  never  been  in  doubt  that,  in 
many  cases,  he  is  perfectly  genuine  in 
his  views.  We  hope  that  people  will 
now  be  satisfied  that  the  conscientious  ob- 
jector may,  at  least,  be  what  he  professes 
to  be,  and  is  not  necessarily  a  mere  cow- 
ard masquerading  under  a  fine  pretence." 
— Manchester  Guardian,  June  27,  1916. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  genuine  consci- 
entious objectors  were  tried  by 
court-martial  and  sentenced  to 
death? 

A. — According  to  The  Daily  News  re- 
port of  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, on  Monday,  June  26,  1915,  34  con- 
scientious objectors  were  sent  to  France, 
after  imprisonment  in  England.  There 
they  were  sent  to  the  front,  and,  refusing 
to  obey  orders,  were  formally  court-mar- 
tialed and  sentenced  to  death.  All  sen- 


tences were,  however,  commuted  to  ten 
years'  penal  servitude.  In  some  cases 
imprisonment  for  a  lesser  period  was 
given.  Among  these  men  were  four  Quak- 


Q. — Have  conscientious  objectors 
been  subjected  to  severe  pun- 
ishment? 

A. — J.  M.  Robertson,  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  replying  on  behalf  of  the  Home 
Secretary  to  a  question  put  by  Ramsay 
McDonald,  said :  "I  think  we  are  agreed 
all  round  the  House  that  some  of  the 
kinds  of  persecutions  which  have  been 
inflicted  on  conscientious  objectors  are 
truly  shocking." 

Q. — If  a  Britisher  in  Germany  mar- 
ries a  German,  could  Germany 
compel  his  sons  to  join  the 
army? 

A. — Not  unless  he  became  naturalized. 
The  German  law  differs  from  the  British. 
It  is  based  upon  the  jus  sanguinis,  which 
regards  the  son  as  a  citizen  of  the  coun- 
try of  which  the  father  is  a  citizen.  The 
British  law  has  as  its  basic  principle  the 
jus  soli,  and  regards  any  person  born  in 
Great  Britain  as  a  British  subject,  even 
if  his  parents  are  both  unnaturalized  for- 
eigners. Australia  has  the  same  law  as 
Great  Britain,  consequently  the  son  of 
an  unnaturalized  German  born  there 
would  be  regarded  as  an  Australian  sub- 
ject. 

Q. — Are  married  men  with  children 
conscripted  in  England? 

A. — All  married  men  up  to  the  age  of 
40  have  been  conscripted,  whether  they 
have  children  or  not.  The  separation 
allowances  (weekly)  granted  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

Wife   12/6  ($3.12) 

Wife  and  one  child  ..  17/6  ($437) 

Wife  and  two  children  21 /-  ($5.25) 

Wife    and    3    children  23/-  ($5.75) 

Wife  and  four  children  25 /-  ($6.25) 

Motherless  children   ..  5/-  ($1.25) 

These  weekly  allowances  were  granted 
in  1915.  Pensions  were  increased.  Wid- 
ows got  5/-  ($1.25)  a  week  at  first;  this 
was  increased  to  7/6  ($1.87),  and  finally 
to  I0/-  ($2.50).  The  grant  to  a  totally 
disabled  soldier  was  increased  from  I5/- 
($3-75)  to  25 /-  ($6.25)  a  week.  These 
increases  added  about  $25,000,000  to  the 
pensions'  bill  in  1915. 


Conscription  Abroad 


245 


Q. — Does  England  protect  drafted 
men's  business  interests? 

A. — A  Civil  Liabilities  Grant  is  made 
to  tradesmen  to  enable  them  to  close 
their  shops  temporarily  and  pay  rent, 
taxes,  etc.,  whilst  on  military  service, 
and  assure  them  a  business  to  return  to 
after  the  war,  and  security  against  their 
creditors.  The  maximum  grant,  how- 
ever, is  only  £104  ($520),  and  many  de- 
mands for  increase  have  been  made  on 
the  government,  which  refused,  however, 
declaring  that  the  experience  of  the  Mil- 
itary Service  Committee,  after  having 
dealt  with  nearly  250,000  applications,  in- 
dicates that  the  present  limit  is  rarely  in- 
sufficient to  meet  cases  of  serious  hard- 
ship. 

Q. — What  allowance  does  the  wife 
of  a  French  soldier  get? 

A. — While  her  husband  is  on  service 
she  is  allowed  1.25  francs  a  day  (a  little 
less  than  25  cents),  and  each  child  gets 
50  centimes  (about  10  cents).  If  the  sol- 
dier has  no  wife,  his  mother  or  other  de- 
pendent can  get  the  1.25  francs  a  day,  and 
if  he  has  no  children  a  dependent  may  re- 


ceive the  50  centimes  the  child  would 
have  had.  This  grant,  however,  is  not 
made  to  everybody;  it  is  only  given  in 
necessitous  cases. 

Q. — What  is  the  pay  of  the  Can- 
adian soldier? 

A. — The  Canadian  private  receives  45. 
6d.  ($1.12)  a  day,  the  New  Zealander  55. 
($1-25). 

Q. — What  pay  does  a  Russian  sol- 
dier get? 

A. — In  peace  time  he  gets  50  kopeks 
(about  27  cents)  a  month.  Tn  war  time 
this  is  doubled,  and  thus  he  gets  a  rouble. 
His  wife  has  an  allowance  given  her  _of 
three  roubles  a  month,  and  each  child 
under  fourteen  gets  a  small  amount,  de- 
pending on  its  age.  Nothing  is  given  for 
children  more  than  14. 

Q. — What  pension  goes  to  the 
widow  of  a  Russian  soldier 
killed  in  battle? 

A. — She  gets  nothing  at  all.  The  three 
roubles  a  month  is  stopped  also. 


POPULATIONS  AND  RELIGIONS 


Q. — What  is  the  population  of  the 
United  States? 

A. — At  the  census  of  1910  the  total 
population  was  91,972,266,  of  whom  81,- 
732,000  were  whites  and  9,828,000  were 
negroes.  The  Indians  numbered  308,000. 
The  total  foreign-born  population  was,  in 
that  year,  13,515,886.  Of  these,  2,501,181 
had  been  born  in  Germany,  1,602,702  in 
Russia,  1,352,151  in  Ireland  1,343,070  in 
Italy,  1,174,924  in  Austria,  1,201,143  in 
Canada,  876,455  in  England,  and  665,183 
in  Sweden.  The  present  population  of 
the  United  States  is  estimated  at  a  little 
more  than  102,000,000. 

Q.— How  many  native-born  Ger- 
mans and  Austrians  are  in 
America? 

A. — According  to  the  Federal  census  of 
1910  (the  last  official  and  authoritative 
enumeration  made  in  the  United  States) 
there  were  the  following  native-born  Aus- 
trians, Germans  and  Hungarians  in  the 
United  States:— 

Native  Austrians 1,174,973 

Native  Germans    2,501,333 

Native  Hungarians  495,609 

Total  4,171,915 

Of  native-born  Americans,  with  one  or 
both  parents  born  in  Germany  or  Aus- 
tria-Hungary, there  were  at  that  time  in 
the  United  States:— 

Americans  with  one  or  both 
parents  born  in  Austria....  826,635 

Americans  with  one  or  both 
parents  born  in  Germany...  5,781,437 

Americans  with  one  or  both 
parents  born  in  Hungary 204,627 


Total  6,812,609 

This  gives  a  total  of  native-born  Ger- 
mans and  Austro-Hungarians  and  their 
children  of  the  first  generation  of  10,- 
984,614. 

Q.— »-How  many  Germans  were  liv- 
ing in  England  when  the  war 
broke  out? 

A. — H.  Samuel,  on  June  29,  1916,  gave 
the  following  figures: — At  the  beginning 
of  the  war  there  were  75,000  Germans 
and  Austrians  living  in  the  United  King- 
dom, excluding  British-born  wives,  of 


whom  there  were  10,000  or  11,000.  Chil- 
dren are  not  included  in  these  figures. 
Of  this  total  of  75,000,  21,000,  principally 
women,  were  repatriated,  or  allowed  to  go 
to  other  countries;  this  left  54,000.  Of 
these  32,000  had  been  interned,  leaving 
22,000  un-interned.  Of  the  un-interned, 
4,000  belong  to  friendly  races,  viz.,  Alsa- 
tians, Italians  from  the  Trentino,  Czechs, 
and  the  like. 

Q. — How  many  Germans  are  there 
in  Brazil? 

A.— The  total  population  of  Brazil  is 
not  accurately  known,  but  it  is  estimated 
at  24,400,000.  Between  1820  and  1007 
93,000  German  immigrants  reached  the 
country,  and  there  has  been  a  slow  influx 
since.  In  1912,  for  instance,  the  immi- 
grants from  Germany  numbered  5,773. 
Practically  all  the  Germans  live  in  the 
Southern  provinces,  and  the  total  num- 
ber of  Brazilians  of  German  parentage  is 
estimated  to  be  about  400,000.  Some- 
times, it  is  given  as  half  a  million. 

Q. — Do  the  Germans  live  in  sepa- 
rate communities? 

A. — They  live  for  the  most  part  in 
separate  communities,  though  there  is 
considerable  intermarriage.  Their  pres- 
ence, and  that  of  the  Italians,  who  are 
still  more  numerous,  has  made  the  south- 
ern provinces  of  Brazil  far  the  most  pros- 
perous. 

Q. — Do  they  take  much  share  in  the 
government  of  the  provinces 
where  they  dwell? 

A. — They  are  most  numerous  in  the » 
province  of  Rio  Grande  do  Sul,  their 
number  there  being  estimated  at  250,000. 
"They  form,"  says  Lord  Bryce,  of  Great 
Britain,  "a  compact  community  which 
preserves  its  national  habits  and  man- 
ages its  own  affairs  with  little  inter- 
ference by  the  central  Government.  It 
is,  in  fact,  disposed  to  resent  any  such 
interference,  and  to  'run  things'  in  its 
own  solid  German  way."  Hiram  Bing- 
ham,  who  is  an  English  authority  in 
South  American  matters,  said  in  1911: 
"The  Germans  in  Southern  Brazil  are  a 
negligible  factor  in  international  affairs, 
but  the  well-educated  young  German  who 
is  being  sent  out  to  capture  South  Amer- 
ica commercially  is  a  power  to  be  reck- 
oned with.  He  is  going  to  damage  Eng- 


246 


Populations  and  Religions 


247 


land    more    truly    than    dreadnaughts    or 
gigantic   airships." 

Q. — It  is  said  that  for  ten  years 
there  had  been  400,000  German 
Reservists  in  Rio  Grande  do 
Sul  and  Sao  Paulo.  Is  that  so? 

A. — The  number  of  people  of  German 
descent  in  Brazil  is  less  than  half  a  mil- 
lion, according  to  official  statements  by 
the  Brazilian  Government.  This  being 
the  case,  it  is  impossible  that  there  could 
be  anything  like  400,000  Germans  of 
fighting  age  there.  The  immigration  of 
Germans — men,  women  and  children — 
into  Brazil  during  the  last  ten  years  has 
averaged  less  than  4,000  per  annum. 
These  figures  would  appear  still  further 
to  minimize  any  possible  number  of  re- 
servists— that  is,  men  trained  in  the  Ger- 
man army. 

Q. — What  is  the  birth  rate  in 
the  fighting  countries? 

A. — In  1912,  it  was  19  per  thousand. 
The  death  rate  was  17.5.  Even  in  the  first 
six  months  of  1914,  there  were  no  less 
than  17,000  fewer  births  in  France  than 
there  were  deaths.  Since  the  war  began 
the  number  of  marriages  has  fallen  off 
greatly.  For  the  last  six  months  of  1914, 
these  totalled  only  43,585,  as  against  122,- 
754  for  the  last  six  months  of  1913.  This 
is  a  decrease  of  no  less  than  65  per  centl 
From  April  to  August,  1915,  there  were 
one-fifth  fewer  births  in  the  26  largest 
German  cities  than  during  the  same  time 
in  1914.  The  British  Registrar-General 
reports  that  the  birth  rate  in  Great  Britain 
for  the  second  quarter  of  1915  was  the 
lowest  since  civil  registration  was  estab- 
lished. 

Q. — Is  the  French  population 
chiefly  agricultural  or  indus- 
trial? 

A. — More  than  one-sixth  of  the  whole 
population  is  engaged  normally  in  manu- 
facturing industry.  This  is  without 
counting  those  engaged  in  affairs  closely 
related  to  manufactures,  such  as  mining, 
quarrying,  transportation,  etc.  Counting 
these  in,  the  total  represents  almost  one- 
fifth  of  the  population.  The  Frenchmen 
engaged  in  commerce  number  less  than 
one-half  of  those  in  manufacturing  in- 
dustries. The  people  engaged  in  agri- 
culture and  forestry  represent  another 
one-fifth  of  the  total  population.  Thus 
agriculture  and  manufacture  lead  about 


evenly  in  France.  A  curious  fact  is  that 
less  than  2  per  cent  of  the  population  is 
enumerated  as  among  the  "liberal  pro- 
fessions," meaning  law,  medicine,  liter- 
ature, art,  etc. 

Q. — Has  the  German  birth-rate 
fallen  while  infantile  death- 
rates  increase? 

A. — Official  figures  are  not  obtain- 
able, but  the  following  are  said  to  be 
accurate : — 

Year.  Births.     Infant  deaths. 

1913    1,839,000  277,000 

1914  •  •• 1,820,000  207,000 

1915    1,416,000  216,000 

1916    1,103,000  167,000 

These  figures  would  show  that  the  in- 
fantile death  rate  has  not  increased,  but 
has  remained  pretty  constant  at  about 
15.1  per  cent  of  the  new  births.  But  the 
decrease  in  births  is  striking  and  it  would 
indicate  the  war  has  heavily  checked  the 
nation's  normal  increase  of  population. 

Q. — What  were  the  comparative 
rates  in  Germany  before  war? 

A. — The  falling  off  of  the  birth  rate 
had  begun  to  cause  concern.  In  Dres- 
den, for  example,  the  figures  were: 
1003,  deaths,  8,570;  births,  15,423.  In 
1913  the  proportion  had  changed  to  deaths, 
7,329;  births,  11,297.  In  1915  there  was  a 
further  change  in  proportion:  deaths, 
6,406;  births,  7,371. 

Thus,  while  the  births  were  in  excess 
of  deaths  each  year,  the  ratio  of  births 
as  against  deaths  showed  a  steady  de- 
cline. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  war  will  have 
changed  this  proportion  still  more  and 
much  for  the  worse. 

Q. — What  is  the  population  of 
Spain  ? 

A.— 20,330,000.  The  country  is  rather 
sparsely  peopled — only  104  to  the  square 
mile.  In  Germany  there  are  324,  in  the 
United  Kingdom  378.  Holland,  with 
6,200,000  inhabitants,  has  493  to  the 
square  mile.  Norway,  with  a  population 
of  2,416,000,  has  a  density  of  only  19, 
but  Sweden's  5,960,000  dwell  32  to  the 
square  mile.  Switzerland  is  a  very  small 
country,  but  manages  to  get  239  people 
to  the  square  mile,  and  has  a  population 
of  3,830,000.  Only  2,780,000  people  live 
in  Denmark.  The  land  is  poor,  but  in- 
tensely cultivated,  there  being  180  folk  to 
the  square  mile. 


248 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — What  is  the  population  of  Rus- 
sia? 

A. — The  Russian  Empire  has  about 
170,000,000  inhabitants.  Of  these  27,000,- 
ooo  live  in  Asia.  There  are,  of  course, 
very  many  races  in  Russia,  but  the  Slavs 
predominate.  They  mostly  belong  to  the 
Greek  Church.  About  11,000,000  Moham- 
medans, 12,000,000  Roman  Catholics, 
6,000,000  Jews,  are  the  other  notable  re- 
ligious bodies.  It  is  estimated  that  only 
50,000,000  Russians  can  read  and  write ; 
the  rest  are  illiterate. 

Q. — Which  country  has  the  largest 
birth  rate? 

A. — Russia  (44  per  thousand),  but  Rou- 
mania  and  Bulgaria  run  her  close.  Fol- 
lowing these  come  Hungary  (36.3), 
Japan  (33-9),  Italy  (32.4),  Austria  (31.3), 
German  Empire  (28.3),  Commonwealth 
of  Australia  (28.3),  Holland  (28.1),  Scot- 
land (25.9),  England  and  Wales  (23.8), 
Ireland  (23.0),  Belgium  (22.9),  France 
(19.0). 

Q. — Are  the  death  rates  in  much 
the  same  proportion? 


_.       TIT*  ^v_  i    ,•  e 

Q.  —  What    is    the    population    of 

Scotland? 

A.—  At  the  last  census,  in  1911,  it  was 
4,760,904.  Particulars  of  the  number  of 
volunteers  from  Scotland  are  not  obtain- 
able,  but  it  is  known  that  when  it  came 
to  conscription  it  was  found  that  but  few 
available  men  were  left.  The  great  ma- 
jority  had  already  joined  the  colors. 

Q.  —  What  is  the  exact  population 

of   Japan,   and   what   that   of 

~,.J    *L 

China? 

A.—  The  number  of  persons  in  Japan 
and  her  dependencies,  including  Korea,  is 
estimated  ?.t  73,440,000,  which  works  out 
at  279  per  square  mile.  The  population 
of  China  and  dependencies  is  estimated 
at  320,650,000,  only  82  people  to  the 
square  mile.  The  number  of  people  in 
Japan  proper,  in  1910,  was  50,750,000. 
Some  1,700,000  babies  are  born  there  every 
year.  In  Russia  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  the  number  of  births  in  1912  was 
estimated  at  more  than  7,000,000. 


Q. — Is  the  population  of  Japan  in- 
creasing rapidly? 

A. — The  annual  increase  is  600,000 
(births  1,700,000,  deaths  1,110,000).  That 
of  the  United  Kingdom  is  about  400,000 ; 
that  of  France  about  20,000.  In  Germany 
the  surplus  of  births  over  deaths  was 
about  900,000  every  year.  In  Russia  the 
annual  increase  was  no  less  than  2,500,000. 
In  Austria  it  was  300,000,  and  in  Hun- 
gary 250,000,  that  is,  550,000  for  the  whole 
of  the  dual  empire.  The  Bulgarians  are 
a  most  prolific  race,  the  balance  of  births 
over  deaths  being  about  85,000  annually. 

Q. — What  is  the  German-born  pop- 
ulation of  Australia? 

A. — According  to  Mr.  Knibbs,  32,990. 
The  same  authority  states  that  500,722 
people  who  were  born  in  the  United  King- 
dom are  now  in  the  Commonwealth — 
2o-775  Chinese,  14,775  Scandinavians, 
6,644  British  Indians,  6,719  Italians,  6,642 
Americans. 

Q. — Does  life,  morally,  in  Germany, 
compare  unfavorably  with 
other  great  Powers? 


Netherlands  ............  23 

Ireland  ..........  26 

England  and  Wales  ........  40 

South  Australia  ............  41 

West  Australia   ............  42 

Spain    .....................  44 

New  Zealand  .........  ......  45 

*Switzerland  ................  45 

Italy    ......................  56 

*Tasmania   ..................  57 

Scotland    ..................  64 

Queensland    ................  65 

*FinIand    ...................  66 

Belgium  ............ 

New  South  Wales  ..........  70 

Victoria  ...................  70 

Germany  ................... 

France 

Hunearv 

Denmark   '                              '  101 


*Austria    141 

Those  marked  (*)  are  for  the  period 
1896-1000.  The  United  States  has  no 
national  system  of  registered  births,  and 
the  Russian  figures  are  so  incomplete 


Populations  and  Religions 


249 


as  to  be  quite  unreliable.  If  we  divide 
the  above  figures  by  five,  we  get  the  yearly 
number  of  illegitimate  babies  per  thou- 
sand births. 

Q. — Is  it  really  true  that  there  are 
an  immense  number  of  war  ba- 
bies in  Great  Britain? 

A. — In  1915  there  was  a  great  agitation 
in  England  to  reform  the  illegitimacy 
laws,  to  legalize  the  position  of  the  girls 
who  were  "giving  themselves  to  the 
country."  Charity  was  asked  for  in  order 
to  support  the  children  of  the  "absent- 
minded  beggars  at  the  front."  The  Gov- 
ernment was  urged  to  adopt  these  chil- 
dren as  the  nation's  wards.  Cold  sta- 
tistics prove  that  all  this  was  much  ado 
about  nothing.  The  Registrar-General 
gives  the  number  of  illegitimate  births 
in  England  and  Wales,  for  the  months  of 
April,  May  and  June,  1915,  as  9,644. 
This,  although  a  deplorably  large  num- 
ber, is  333  less  than  for  the  correspond- 
ing period  of  1914.  That  is  to  say,  the 
call  to  arms  has  reduced  the  evil,  not  in- 
creased it.  It  is  the  same  in  France. 

Q. — What  was  the  population  of 
Great  Britain  at  the  time  of  the 
Napoleonic  wars  ? 

A.— In  1801  it  was  10,942,000.  The 
population  of  London  at  that  time  was 
864,800,  that  of  Glasgow  was  77,000.  In 
1850,  just  before  the  Crimean  war,  the 
population  of  Great  Britain  was  20,936,- 
ooo,  and  of  London  2,360,000. 

Q. — Has  Germany  been  drained  of 
her  people  by  emigration  to 
anything  like  the  extent  of  the 
United  Kingdom? 

A. — Men  and  women  are  not  one  of 
Germany's  principal  exports.  The  yearly 
departure  for  the  last  decade  has  only 
once  touched  30,000,  and  averages  about 
20,000.  Practically  all  these  went  to  the 
United  States.  The  average  emigration 
from  Ireland  for  many  years  has  been 
more  than  30,000  per  annum,  and  in  the 
sixty  years  from  1851  to  1909  the  island 
lost  no  less  than  4,154,986  of  its  inhab- 
itants in  this  way.  The  total  emigration 
from  the  United  Kingdom  has  reached 
500,000  a  year  and  has  averaged  more 
than  200,000  a  year  for  the  last  decade. 
This  means  that,  after  making  all  allow- 
ances for  immigration  into  the  country, 
the  United  Kingdom  has  lost  more  than 
2.000,000  men,  women  and  children  dur- 
ing the  last  ten  years  by  emigration. 


Q. — Is  it  true  that  every  natural- 
born  German,  no  matter  where 
domiciled,  is  declared  a  Ger- 
man subject  whether  he  has 
sworn  allegiance  to  another 
country  or  not? 

A. — So  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  no 
German  proclamation  of  this  nature  has 
been  issued  since  the  war  began.  The 
belief  probably  is  based  on  the  Delbruck 
Law,  which  came  into  force  in  January, 
1914.  The  Delbruck  Law  did  not  apply 
to  German  citizens  who  were  already 
naturalized,  but  only  to  those  who  took 
out  naturalization  papers  after  the  Act 
came  into  force,  and  only  to  those  who 
had  obtained  the  permission  of  the  Ger- 
man authorities  in  Europe  before  taking 
out  their  papers.  As  the  law  came  into 
force  in  Germany  only  in  January,  1914, 
and  as  the  war  broke  out  at  the  begin- 
ning of  August,  one  would  imagine  that 
Germans  naturalized  in  this  country  who 
still  remain  citizens  of  Germany  in  virtue 
of  the  new  Act  must  be  few  indeed,  if 
any. 

Q. — Most  British  emigrants  go  to 
British  colonies,  do  they  not? 

A. — They  do  not,  although  during  the 
last  quinquennial  period  before  the  war 
something  more  than  half  went  to  Can- 
ada, Australia  and  other  parts  of  the 
Empire.  But  100,000  at  least,  often  200,- 
ooo,  have  been  steadily  going  to  the 
United  States  every  year  for  very  many 
years. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  a  naturalized 
German  in  Australia  ceases  to 
be  a  British  or  Australian  sub- 
ject once  he  is  beyond  the 
three-mile  sea  limit? 

A. — Any  foreigner  naturalized  in  Aus- 
tralia ceases  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of 
British  citizenship  as  soon  as  he  leaves 
the  country,  as  the  British  Government 
does  not  recognize  its  responsibility  for 
anyone  naturalized  in  the  colonies.  An 
attempt  to  alter  this  anomalous  state  of 
affairs  was  made  in  the  British  Nation- 
ality and  Status  of  Aliens  Act,  which 
received  the  royal  assent  on  August  7, 

1914,  and  came  into  force  on  January  i, 

1915.  It  is,  however,   specifically  stated 
in  the  Act  that  it  does  not  apply  to,  nor 
does     any    certificate    of    naturalization 
granted  thereunder  have  any  effect  in  the 
Commonwealth,    Canada,    New    Zealand, 
South  Africa  and  Newfoundland,  unless 
the  Act  is  there  adopted.     As  this  has 


250 


Questions  and  Answers 


not  been  done  in  Australia,  any  foreigner 
naturalized  there  is  under  the  same  dis- 
abilities as  formerly — he  ceases  to  enjoy 
the  privileges  of  British  citizenship  as 
soon  as  he  leaves  the  country. 

Q. — Have  the  Germans  cancelled 
the  naturalization  papers  of 
enemy  subjects  who  are  still 
residing  in  Germany? 

A. — There  is  no  absolutely  authentic  in- 
formation on  the  subject,  but  apparently 
they  have  not  cancelled  them.  As  far  as 
can  be  gathered  from  reports  there  are 
no  foreigners  who  have  acquired  German 
nationality  interned  in  Ruhleben,  al- 
though a  good  number  of  the  "Austra- 
lians" who  are  interned  there  are  Ger- 
mans who  became  naturalized  here.  Their 
naturalization  is  therefore  apparently 
recognized  by  the  German  authorities. 
The  irony  of  the  situation  is  that  if 
these  Australians  were  liberated  and 
sent  back  to  Australia,  they  would  prob- 
ably be  interned  as  Germans. 

Q. — What  are  the  populations  of 
the  South  American  republics? 

Brazil    24,400,000 

Argentine 7,500,000 

Colombia   5,100,000 

Peru    4,500,000 

Chile   3,550,ooo 

Venezuela 2,760,000 

Bolivia    2,520,000 

Ecuador   1,500,000 

Uruguay    1,300,000 

Paraguay   -~     800,000 

Panama    400,000 

British  Guiana 300,000 

Q. — Is  this  a  war  of  religion? 

A. — This  is  not,  in  any  sense,  a  relig- 
ious war,  for  Roman  Catholics  are  fight- 
ing Roman  Catholics,  Protestants  are 
furiously  struggling  with  Protestants, 
Greek  Catholics  are  opposed  to  Greek 
Catholics,  and  in  a  few  cases  even  Mo- 
hammedans are  slaying  Mohammedans. 
The  figures  are  interesting: — 

Roman  Catholics  164,000,000 

Greek   Church    113,000,000 

Protestants    95,000,000 

Mohammedans    24,000,000 

Q. — Are  more  Roman  Catholics  on 
the  side  of  the  Allies  or  of  the 
Central  Powers? 

A. — There  are  far  more  on  the  Allies' 
side.  It  is  estimated  that  the  number  of 


Roman  Catholics  in  Germany  and  Austria 
is  24,000,000  and  31,000,000  respectively. 
There  are  a  few  thousand  Roman  Cath- 
olics only  in  Bulgaria.  France  and  Italy 
are  Roman  Catholic,  and  in  the  United 
Kingdom  there  are  6,000,000  professing 
this  faith.  The  Poles  are  Roman  Cath- 
olics ;  so  are  the  Portuguese.  The  Serbian 
religion  is  Greek  Orthodox;  so  is  the 
Russian. 

Q. — What  is  the  number  of  adher- 
ents to  the  different  religions 
of  the  world? 

A. — There  are   estimated  to  be  in  the 
world : — 


Roman  Catholics  

Greek  Catholics  

Protestants    

Jews    

Mohammedans   

Buddhists   

Hindus    

Confucianists   £   Taoists 

Shintpists    

Animists    

Miscellaneous   . 


272,860,000 
120,000,000 
171,650,000 

12,200,000 
222,000,000 
138,000,000 
210,500,000 
300,000,000 

25,000,000 
158,000,000 

15,000,000 


That  is,  of  a  total  of  1,646,000,000, 
roughly  two-thirds  are  non-Christian  and 
one-third  Christian. 

Q. — What  are  Animists? 

A.— They  are  the  races  that  have  a 
primitive  form  of  religion,  which  ex- 
presses itself  in  such  practices  as  worship 
of  the  spirits  of  the  dead,  worship  of  ani- 
mals and  plants,  belief  in  a  sky  or  under- 
world inhabited  by  corporeal  beings,  etc. 

Q- — Are    there    many    Mohamme- 
dans in  India? 

A. — At  the  census  taken  in  1911  the 
total  population  of  India  was  found  to  be 
315,156,396,  of  whom  217,586,892  were 
Hindus,  66,647,299  were  Mohammedans, 
10,721,453  were  Buddhists,  and  3,876,203 
were  Christians.  Of  the  total  only  18,- 
539,578  persons  could  read  and  write. 
Two  million  persons  were  employed  in 
taking  this  census,  which  cost  only  £135,- 
ooo  ($680,000). 

Q. — Is  there  religious  freedom  in 
Germany? 

A. — In  Germany  there  is  entire  liberty 
of  conscience,  and  complete  social  equal- 
ity among  all  religious  confessions.  The 


Populations  and  Religions 


251 


Jesuit  Order,  however,  is  interdicted  in 
all  parts  of  Germany.  The  Roman 
Catholics  are  in  a  majority  in  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  Bavaria  and  Baden,  and  form 
more  than  20  per  cent  of  the  population 
in.  Oldenburg,  Wurttemberg,  Hessen  and 
Prussia. 


Q. — Is  there  a  religious  revival  in 
France  similar  to  that  in  Ger- 
many? 

A. — There  appears  to  be  a  great  revival 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
France.  It  is  real,  say  those  who  have 
studied  it;  the  most  real,  tangible,  pon- 
derable thing  in  the  war.  In  Germany, 
too,  the  churches  are  thronged,  and  a 
fervent  religious  spirit  is  shown. 


Q. — Was  the  Great  Mosque  of  St. 
Sophia  in  Constantinople  orig- 
inally a  Christian  Cathedral? 

A. — It  was  built  by  Justinian  in  538, 
and  replaced  two  earlier  churches  of  the 
same  name.  The  first  one,  built  by  Con- 
stantine,  the  founder  of  the  city,  was 
burnt  in  404 ;  the  second,  erected  by  Theo- 
dosius  II,  in  415,  also  was  destroyed  by 
fire.  St.  Sophia,  until  the  Turks  took  it, 
was  under  the  control  of  the  Greek 
Church,  which  was  not  definitely  sepa- 
rated from  the  Latin  Church  until  the 
great  schism  of  the  ninth  century.  The 
beautiful  paintings  and  mosaics  of  the 
saints  inside  the  building  were  not  all 
destroyed  by  the  Turks,  but  wings  were 
painted  over  their  faces,  as  such  figures 
were  prohibited  by  the  Mohammedan  re- 
ligion. 


SHIP  DESTRUCTION 


Q. — How  much  shipping  has  sub- 
marine warfare  destroyed? 

A. — During  the  first  3^2  years  of  the 
war,  the  most  conflicting  figures  were 
given  to  the  world.  Spokesmen  for  the 
British  Government  made  statements  that 
were  alternately  encouraging  and  alarm- 
ing, but  that  never  gave  specific  and  au- 
thoritative facts.  The  vague  figures 
given  were  far  below  the  figures  claimed 
by  the  German  Admiralty.  American  ex- 
perts, by  close  calculations,  arrived  at 
figures  that  lay  between  the  British  and 
German,  and  indicated  seriously  alarm- 
ing diminution  of  the  world's  tonnage. 

On  March  21,  1918,  the  British  Admir- 
alty suddenly  made  public  its  figures,  kept 
secret  until  then,  and  they  bore  out  the 
American  opinion.  The  Admiralty  fig- 
ures showed  that  the  loss  of  world  ton- 
nage from  the  beginning  of  war  to  the 
end  of  1917  (thus  including  the  first  year, 
less  a  month,  of  unrestricted  submarine 
warfare)  amounted  to  11,827,572  gross 
tons.  It  was  stated  that  the  figures  in- 
cluded losses  from  the  regular  risks  of 
the  sea  and  also  Allied  tonnage  interned 
in  German  ports.  The  latter  amounted 
to  132,829  tons.  Deducting  it,  we  have 
11,694,743  gross  tons  lost  utterly  to  the 
world. 

Q. — What  is  the  normal  ship  loss 
through  storm  and  other  risks  ? 

A, — The  average  of  total  losses  for 
twenty  years  shows  a  loss  in  peace  time 
of  about  156,000  tons  a  year,  but  as  the 
world's  tonnage  has  increased  every  year, 
of  course  this  average  loss  must  be  fig- 
ured as  increasing  year  by  year.  After 
war  began  the  demand  for  tonnage  caused 
many  old  ships  to  be  put  into  service,  and, 
as  a  good  proportion  of  these  probably 
was  not  highly  seaworthy,  the  losses  from 
storm,  etc.,  must  have  increased  quite 
beyond  the  normal  average.  Lacking  pre- 
cise figures,  only  a  guess  can  be  made ; 
but  if  we  guess  that  the  loss  from  natural 
causes  was  a  million  tons  from  the  be- 
ginning of  war  to  March  I,  1918,  we  are 
probably  making  an  exceedingly  gener- 
ous estimate.  This  would  make  the  total 
sunk  by  submarines  10,694,743  tons. 

Q. — What  was  the  total  ship  loss 
before  unrestricted  warfare  be- 
gan? 

.A— The  British  Admiralty  figures  of 
March  21,  1918,  show  the  following: 


1914—498,534  tons;  1915  1,724,720  tons; 
1916 — 2,797,866  tons,  making  a  total  of 
5,021,120  gross  tons.  As  the  submarine 
warfare  through  that  period  was  only 
against  Allied  shipping,  with  only  such 
neutral  ships  sunk  as  were  carrying  con- 
traband, the  heaviest  part  of  the  loss  was 
British  and  French. 

Q. — How  much  tonnage  loss  was 
British  up  to  the  beginning  of 
unrestricted  warfare? 

A. — The  British  losses  (counting  only 
the  ships  registered  as  belonging  to  the 
United  Kingdom)  were  given  by  the 
Admiralty  as  follows :  1914 — 285,899 
tons;  1915 — 1,108,379  tons;  1916 — 1,497,- 
848  tons ;  making  a  total  to  January  I, 
1918,  of  2,892,126  gross  tons. 

Q. — Did  the  first  year  of  unre- 
stricted submarine  warfare  in- 
crease the  British  loss  heavily? 

A. — A  little  more  than  four  million 
tons  were  sunk  from  January  I,  1917,  to 
December  31,  1917 — that  is,  in  the  first 
year  of  unrestricted  submarine  warfare 
the  British  merchant  marine  lost  one  and 
one-third  times  as  much  tonnage  as  it 
had  lost  in  all  the  previous  years  of  the 
war.  Unrestricted  submarine  warfare 
began  on  February  I,  1917.  Therefore 
these  figures,  while  taking  in  one  month 
before  it  began,  and  leaving  out  one 
month  (January,  1918),  are  close  enough. 
The  total  British  tonnage  sunk  in  1917 
was  exactly  4,009,537,  according  to  the 
Admiralty  figures. 

Q. — How  much  shipping  of  all  na- 
tions was  destroyed  in  the  first 
year  of  unrestricted  warfare  ? 

A. — British,  4,009,537  tons;  other  na- 
tions (including  both  Allies  and  neutrals), 
2,614,086  gross  tons.  Total  of  world's 
snipping  destroyed  in  the  first  year  of 
unrestricted  submarine  war  (from  Jan- 
uary i,  1917,  to  December  31,  1917) • 
6,623,623  tons. 

Q. — Did  Great  Britain's  Allies  lose 
heavily  ? 

A. — According  to  the  neutral  figures, 
the  losses  of  neutral  tonnage  in  the  first 
year  of  unrestricted  warfare  were  1,335,- 
ooo  tons.  This  would  leave  a  destruc- 


252 


Ship  Destruction 


253 


tion  of  1,279,086  tons  to  be  accounted 
for  as  being  Allied  merchant  tonnage — 
French,  Italian,  Russian,  Japanese,  Por- 
tugese, Greek,  etc.  The  losses  of  Amer- 
ican tonnage  were  comparatively  slight 
in  proportion,  and  mar'e  only  a  very 
small  part  of  this  total. 

Q. — How  many  American  vessels 
were  sunk? 

A. — It  was  announced  in  January,  1918, 
that  during  the  twelvemonth  up  to  Jan- 
uary 25,  1918,  submarines,  raiders  and 
mines  had  sunk  69  American  vessels  total- 
ing 176,061  tons.  A  good  number  of 
these  were  sailing  ships.  The  loss  of  life 
was  more  than  300. 

Among  the  ships  sunk  were  German 
vessels  that  had  sheltered  in  American 
ports  while  this  country  was  neutral,  and 
which  were  requisitioned  later  and  put 
into  American  service.  The  Actaeon, 
formerly  the  Adamsthurin  and  the 
Owasco,  formerly  the  Allemaniokj  were 
thus  sunk. 

Q. — What  shipping  did  the  neu- 
trals lose? 

A. — The  figures  given  by  the  neutral 
nations  were :  Norway,  680,000  tons ; 
Sweden,  200,000  tons ;  Holland,  175,000 
tons ;  Spain,  80,000  tons ;  other  neutrals, 
200,000  tons,  or  a  total  of  1,335,000  tons. 

Q. — What  figures  do  the  Germans 
claim  for  submarine  sinkings? 

A. — The  Germans,  according  to  state- 
ments made  by  some  officials,  expected  to 
sink  one  million  tons  a  month  or  twelve 
millions  in  the  year  of  unrestricted  war- 
fare. In  November,  1917,  the  German 
Admiralty  gave  out  figures  that  asserted 
a  total  destruction  in  the  first  nine 
months  of  7,518,000  tons,  or  almost  a 
million  tons  more  than  the  British  fig- 
ures give  for  a  whole  year.  Calculating 
the  remaining  three  months'  sinkings  on 
the  basis  of  the  lowest  month's  German 
calculations,  the  German  figures  would 
claim  a  total  sinking  in  the  first  year  of 
unrestricted  warfare  of  nine  and  one-half 
million  tons. 

Q. — What  does  Germany  claim  as 
the  total  destruction  of  mer- 
chant tonnage  since  war  be- 
gan? 

A. — An  unofficial  statement  at  the  end 
of  1917  asserted  that  up  to  that  time 
18,000,000  tons  had  been  destroyed.  This 
was  to  the  end  of  November,  1917,  and 


without  counting  in  December.  These 
figures  claimed  as  the  total  sinkings  be- 
fore unrestricted  submarine  warfare  a 
tonnage  of  4,560,000  gross.  This  is  less 
than  the  British  Admiralty  statement  of 
1918,  which  admits  a  loss  of  a  little  more 
than  five  million  gross  tons. 

Q. — Has  ship  construction  kept 
pace  with  destruction? 

A. — It  has  not.  For  a  long  time  the 
world  was  curiously  misinformed  about 
the  situation.  Sir  Eric  Geddes,  First 
Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  gave  out  many 
figures  which  puzzled  experts.  The 
American  Government  from  the  first 
maintained  a  consistent  attitude,  warn- 
ing the  nation  that  the  submarine  peril 
was  very  real  and  very  acute.  The  cor- 
rectness of  this  American  position  was 
proved  on  March  20,  1918,  when  Sir  Eric 
admitted  in  Parliament  that  submarine 
destruction  amounted  to  more  than  six 
million  tons  during  the  first  year  of  un- 
restricted warfare.  The  figures  that  he 
then  gave  as  to  construction  to  meet  the 
loss,  were  much  less  optimistic  than 
those  he  had  been  issuing.  However,  he 
still  claimed  that  the  world  had  forty- 
two  million  tons  of  shipping  left  and 
that  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  losses 
was  being  replaced  by  new  construction. 

Q. — What  did  American  figures 
suggest  as  to  the  tonnage 
shortage? 

On  March  i,  1918,  two  weeks  before 
the  British  Admiralty  figures  were  pub- 
lished, the  executive  board  of  the  Na- 
tional Patriotic  Societies  made  public  fig- 
ures asserting  that  the  shortage  in  world 
tonnage  was  almost  seven  and  one-half 
million  tons — that  is,  equal  to  a  shortage 
of  1,500  five-thousand-ton  vessels.  It 
was  declared  that  the  total  tonnage  really 
available  to  the  United  States  and  the 
Allies  was  four  and  one-half  million  tons 
less  than  it  had  been  in  1914.  Attention 
also  was  called  to  the  fact  that  this  short- 
age was  aggravated  by  the  demand  for 
at  least  three  million  tons  to  transport 
and  maintain  one  and  one-half  million 
men  in  the  war  zone.  Sir  Eric  Geddes 
claimed  on  March  20,  1918,  before  Par- 
liament that  the  world  shortage  was  only 
two  and  one-half  million  tons. 

Q. — What  is  the  new  ship  con- 
struction of  the  world? 

A. — When  the  British  Admiralty  made 
its  secret  figures  of  submarine  sinkings 
public  on  March  21,  1918,  it  gave  also  in 
estimate  of  the  amount  of  new  construe- 


254 


Questions  and  Answers 


tion  by  all  the  nations  of  the  world  ex- 
clusive of  the  Central  Powers.  The  fig- 
ures showed  that  at  the  end  of  1915  there 
had  been  built  a  little  more  than  two 
million  new  tonnage.  In  1916  there  was 
built  a  total  tonnage  of  1,600,000.  The 
tonnage  building  in  1917  was  a  little  more 
than  2,700,000  tons.  Altogether,  in  exact 
figures,  the  new  tonnage  (part  of  which 
it  will  be  observed  was  only  laid  down 
in  1917  and  not  ready  to  launch)  was 
6,606,275  tons.  That  meant  that  the  sub- 
marines were  sinking  merchant  tonnage 
almost  twice  as  fast  as  new  tonnage  was 
being  produced  (one  and  three-quarter 
times  as  fast,  to  be  exact). 

Q. — Did  not  Norway  lose  more 
tonnage  than  some  of  the  bel- 
ligerents ? 

A. — Norway's  loss  of  680,000  tons 
caused  her  a  bigger  loss  in  tonnage  than 
that  of  France,  Italy,  Russia,  Greece  or 
Japan.  As,  however,  Norway  was  a  great 
merchant-marine  nation,  her  losses  com- 
paratively were  not  so  heavy  as  those  of 
such  belligerents  as  originally  had  only 
a  limited  merchant  marine. 

It  is  known,  also,  that  Norwegian  citi- 
zens built  and  bought  a  huge  number  of 
ships  throughout  the  war  for  the  spe- 
cial purpose  of  trading  through  the  dan- 
gerous war  zone,  and  that  the  profits  so 
gained  probably  more  than  paid  for  the 
tonnage  lost  in  the  trade. 

Q. — What  is  Norway's  rank  in 
ownership  of  merchant  ton- 
nage? 

A, — Norway  has  a  population  of  only 
2,300,000.  Her  mercantile  tonnage  as  re- 
corded last  was  2,770,000 — more  than  one 
ton  per  head  of  population.  Germany, 
with  a  population  of  68  millions,  had 
4,150,000  tonnage.  Great  Britain,  with 
46^  million  population,  had  19,130,000 
tonnage  before  the  war. 

Q. — Are  the  Germans  building 
many  merchant  ships? 

A. — Neutral  visitors  reported  that  many 
merchant  ships  had  been  laid  down  since 
the  war  began,  and  the  reports  of  Ger- 
man shipping  companies  show  that  there 
must  have  been  many  new  ships  on  the 
stocks.  The  North  German  Lloyd  re- 
ported that  since  1914  it  had  taken  over 
ten  vessels  in  course  of  construction,  with 
an  aggregate  tonnage  of  70,000  tons,  and 
that  there  still  were  eight  steamers  being 
built,  of  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  135,000 


tons.  These  include  the  Columbus  and 
the  Hindenburg,  each  of  35,000  tons,  much 
larger  than  the  giant  Vaterland.  Of  the 
company's  25,000  employees,  some  6,000 
were  then  serving  at  the  front  or  in  the 
navy. 

Q. — What  was  the  effect  of  war  on 
America  so  far  as  ship-move- 
ment was  concerned? 

A. — The  records  of  the  Department  of 
Commerce  show  that  for  the  period  be- 
ginning February  i,  1917,  and  ending  De- 
cember i,  1917,  the  clearances  from  Amer- 
ican ports  were  17,738,000  tons  net  (about 
28,834,000  gross).  This  total,  of  course, 
was  produced  by  many  repeated  voyages 
of  the  same  ships. 

Q. — In  what  months  of  the  year 
can  submarines  act  most  ener- 
getically? 

A. — The  figures  of  tonnage  lost  by  the 
month  will  give  an  indication.  A  more 
graphic  one  is  offered  by  the  following 
table  showing  numbers  of  ships  lost  in 
each  month  from  February  i,  1917,  to 
February  i,  1918. 

British  Losses  in  Ships. 

Number 
Ships. 

February 140 

March   93 

April    185 

May  113 

June  no 

July   8l 

August    104 

September    73 

October 87 

November 61 

December    70 

January   (not  wholly  complete) 52 


Total 


1,169 


Q.— Why    was    the    ship    "Frye" 
sunk? 

A. — The  William  P.  Frye  was  an 
American  ship  that  was  captured  by  the 
German  raider  Prim  Eitel  Friedrieh,  Jan- 
uary 28,  1915,  while  carrying  a  cargo  of 
wheat  to  the  British  Isles.  The  raider 
took  off  her  crew  and  sank  the  ship  on 
the  ground  that  the  cargo  was  contra- 
band. The  United  States  Government 
protested  against  the  sinking,  urging  that 
it  was  in  violation  of  the  treaties  of 
1709  and  1828  with  Prussia,  and  pre- 
sented a  claim  for  the  value  of  the  ship. 
The  German  Government  acknowledged 


Ship  Destruction 


255 


its  liability  under  the  treaties,  but  con- 
tended that  the  sinking  of  the  ship  was 
legal  if  its  value  in  money  was  paid.  An 
agreement  was  finally  reached,  providing 


that  the  question  whether  there  had  been 
a  violence  of  international  law  should  be 
referred  for  decision  to  The  Hague  tri- 
bunal. 


AMERICAN  SHIP  SEIZURES 


Q. — How  many  German  and  Aus- 
trian ships  did  we  requisition? 

A. — Requisitions  in  American  ports 
after  American  declaration  of  war  added 
107  vessels  with  a  tonnage  of  686,494  gross 
tons  to  the  merchant  marine  under  the 
United  States  flag. 

This  leaves  out  of  account  such  Ger- 
man and  Austrian  ships  as  were  taken 
over  for  naval  and  army  purposes. 

Q. — What  was  the  value  of  these 
ships  ? 

A. — It  was  estimated  to  be  more  than 
$100,000,000.  This  great  aggregate  value 
was  produced,  of  course,  by  the  many 
magnificent  liners  among  the  requisitioned 
ships,  and  the  greatly  increased  ship- 
values. 

Q. — Did  the  United  States  add 
other  ships  to  the  merchant 
service  by  requisition? 

A. — Through  the  Shipping  Act  the 
United  States  requisitioned  in  American 
shipyards  426  vessels  totalling  more  than 
2,000,000  gross  tons,  which  were  building 
for  neutrals  and  for  Great  Britain,  France 
and  other  of  the  Allied  nations. 

Q. — What  was  the  capacity  of  the 
German  liners? 

A. — Fifteen  of  the  ships  were  ocean 
liners  ranging  from  10,000  to  54,000  tons. 
These  fifteen  ships  had  an  aggregate  ton- 
nage of  280,000  tons,  and  a  combined  car- 
rying capacity  of  60,000  troops. 

Q. — When  did  requisitioned  Ger- 
man ships  carry  supplies  to 
the  front? 

A. — On  January  29,  1918,  announcement 
was  made  that  sixteen  former  German 
ships  had  reached  France  within  a  pe- 
riod preceding  the  announcement.  Among 
these  was  the  great  Vaterland,  re-named 
Leviathan.  Among  the  others  were  :  Cov- 
ington  (Cincinnati),  America,  (Amcr- 
ika),  President  Grant,  President  Lin- 
coln, Powhatan,  (Hamburg),  Madawaska, 
(Koenig  Wilhelm  II),  George  Washing- 
ton, Mount  Vernon  (Kronprinzessin  Ce- 
cilie),  Agamemnon  (Kaiser  IVelhelm  II), 
Aeolus  (Grosser  Kurfiirst),  Mercury 


(Barbarossa),  Pocahontas  (Princess 
Irene),  Huron  (Fricdrich  der  Grosse), 
Von  Steuben  (Kronprinz  Wilhelm),  De 
Kalb  (Prim  Eitel  Friedrich). 

The  names  in  parentheses  are  the  origi- 
nal German  names  of  these  ships. 

Q. — What  other  German  ships 
were  re-named? 

German  name.  American  name. 

Andromeda    U.S.S.   Bath 

Breslau    USS.   Bridgeport 

Frieda  Leonhart   U.S.S.  Astoria 

Geicr   USS.  Schurs 

Gruncwald  ..USS.  Gen.  G.  W.  Goethals 

Hermes   USS.  Hermes 

Hohenfelde  USS.  Long  Beach 

Kiel   USS.   Camden 

Liebenfels   U.S.S.  Houston 

Locksun   USS.  Gulf  port 

Neckar    USS.   Antigone 

Nicaria  USS.  Pensacola 

Oldenwald   U.S.S.  Newport  News 

Praesident USS.  Kittcry 

Rhein    U.S.S.  Susquehanna 

Rudolph  Blumbcrg  USS.  Beaufort 

Saxonia   U.S.S.  Savannah 

Staatssekraetar  Solf  USS.  Samoa 

Vogensen   U.S.S.   Quincy 

Q. — Was  it  possible  to  repair  all 
the  German  ships? 

A. — It  was  announced  officially  that  by 
1918  every  damaged  German  ship  had 
been  fully  repaired  and  was  in  active  use, 
some  having  made  three  or  four  round 
trips  through  the  war  zone. 

Q. — Why  did  the  American  Gov- 
ernment not  prevent  damage 
of  these  ships? 

A. — Before  the  American  declaration  of 
war,  the  German  and  Austrian  ships  were 
sheltering  in  American  ports  under  full 
right,  and  their  masters  and  crews  were 
in  complete  charge.  The  American  Gov- 
ernment had  only  such  rights  over  them 
as  every  government  may  exercise  over 
foreign  ships  in  its  waters.  This  right 
did  not  extend  to  interference  with  any 
acts  of  master  or  crew  that  did  not  en- 
danger the  security  or  peace  of  the  United 
States.  The  owners  and  crews  were  at 
perfect  liberty,  both  legally  and  morally, 
to  dismantle  these  vessels  entirely,  even 
to  break  them  up  for  junk,  if  they  so  de- 
sired. So  long  as  the  damage  they  did 


256 


American  Ship  Seizures 


257 


to  their  own  ships  did  not  block  Ameri- 
can channels  or  otherwise  affect  the  rights 
of  any  except  the  owners  of  those  ves- 
sels, they  had  the  right  to  do  what  they 
wished  with  their  own  property. 

Q.— Then  they  could  not  be  pun- 
ished? 

A. — A  good  way  for  Americans  to  get 
the  legal  and  even  moral  point  of  view  in 
this  matter  is  to  consider  what  the  Amer- 
ican feeling  would  be  toward  an  Ameri- 
can ship-master  and  crew  lying  in  Ger- 
man waters  when  war  was  declared.  If 
such  Americans  had  dismantled  or  dam- 
aged their  ships  to  make  them  worthless 
to  the  German  Government,  we  would, 
without  doubt,  and  quite  properly  so,  fully 
approve  it. 

Q. — What  German  ships  were  in- 
terned in  New  York? 

Tons. 

Adamsturm   5,000 

Allemannia 4,630 

Armenia   5,464 

Barbarossa 10,984 

Bohemia 8,414 

Clara  Menig   1,685 

Friedrich   der   Grosse 10,771 

George  Washington   25,570 

Grosser  Kurfurst  13,102 

Harburg  4,472 

Hamburg   10,531 

*Indea 1,746 

Kaiser   Wilhelm   II    19,361 

Koenig  Wilhelm  II   9,410 

Magdeburg    4,497 

Maia   2,555 

*Matador  1,468 

Pennsylvania    13,333 

Pisa 4,067 

Portonia  2,778 

President  Grant  18,072 

President  Lincoln   18,168 

Prinsess  Irene 10,893 

Prinz  Eitel  Friedrich   4,650 

Prinz  Joachim 4,760 

Vaterland 54,282 


271,503 

Q. — Were  many  ships  interned  in 
other  ports? 

BOSTON 

Kronprinsessin  Cecile 19,503 

Cincinnati    16,339 

Amerika  22,622 

Wittekurd 5,640 

Willehad 4,761 

Kohn  7,409 

Ockenfels 5,621 


Breslau 
Andromeda 


NEW  ORLEANS 


7,624 

2,554 


SAN  FRANCISCO 


Serapis   4,756 


Bulgaria 
Neckar  . 
Rhein  . 


BALTIMORE 


CHARLESTON,  S.  C. 
Liebenfels    


PORTLAND,  OREGON 

*Dalbek    

Kurt    

Arnoldus   Vinnen    

SAVANNAH 


Hohenfelde 

WILMINGTON,  N.  C. 


Nicaria 
Kiel  . 


PHILADELPHIA 

Rhaetia    

Franconia 

Prim  Oskar   . 


Saxonia    . 
*Steinbek 


SEATTLE 


HONOLULU 

Prinz  Waldemar  

Pommern  

Gou-verneur  Jaeschke    

Holsatia   

Loong  Moon    

Staatssekretar  Kraetke   

Letos  

O.  J.  D.  Alhers  

Hermes    


Odenwald 
Praesident 


SAN  JUAN,  P.R. 


TAMPA 

Rudolf  Blumberg 

Frieda  Leonhardt   , 

Vogensen    


11,440 

9,835 

10,058 


4,525 

2,723 
1,731 
1,860 

2,974 


3,974 
4,494 

6,600 
4,637 
6,026 


4,424 
2,164 


3,227 
6,557 
i,738 
5,644 
i,97i 
2,009 
4,730 
7,490 
1,180 


3,537 
1,849 


1,769 
2,789 


NORFOLK 

Appam    

Prinz  Eitel  Friedrich 

Kronprins  Wilhelm 

*  Sailing  ships. 


7,78i 

8,797 

14,908 


81,895 


Q. — Must  belligerents  pay  for  use 
of  enemy  ships  used  during 
war? 

A. — According     to     international     law, 
payment  must  be  made  for  the  use  of  all 


258 


Questions  and  Ansivers 


enemy  ships  which  were  in  harbor  when 
war  was  declared  or  were  taken  on  the 
high  seas  before  the  captain  knew  that 
war  had  broken  out.  It  is  even  customary 
to  obtain  the  formal  permission  of  the 
enemy  company  owning  the  ships  before 
making  use  of  them.  Such  permission 
is,  of  course,  granted,  because  the  ships 
would  be  commandeered  whether  or  no. 
The  terms  of  hire  are,  as  a  rule,  settled 
by  the  courts.  In  the  last  report  of  the 
Nord  Deutscher  Lloyd  Company  mention 
is  made  of  there  having  been  five  of  its 
ships  in  Italian  harbors,  four  in  Portu- 
guese, and  five  in  Australian,  "which  have 
all  been  requisitioned,  and  will  be  duly 
paid  for."  It  stated  further  that  two  large 
and  three  small  ships  had  been  lost  tn 
government  service,  and  five  had  been 
captured  on  the  high  seas. 

Q. — If  the  Germans  sink  requisi- 
tioned German  ships,  who  will 
pay  for  them  in  the  end? 

A. — If  this  matter  were  not  complicated 
by  public  feeling,  quarrels  over  mutual 
charges  of  violations  of  international  law, 
etc.,  the  answer  would  Be  very  simple. 
We  should  have  to  pay  for  them.  The 
legal  argument  is  as  follows :  ( I )  the  Ger- 
man ships  sheltered  in  American  ports 
when  the  United  States  was  neutral.  In 
so  doing  they  exercised  their  good  right 
and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  neutral  to  so 
shelter  them.  (2)  When  the  United 
States  declared  war  on  Germany,  the  Ger- 
man merchant  shipping  in  her  ports  thus 
occupied  the  position  of  being  vessels  en- 
titled to  immunity  from  prize  capture, 
under  the  international  law  that  a  bellig- 
erent may  not  make  prize  of  enemy  mer- 
chant vessels  that  lie  in  his  ports  at  the 
time  of  declaring  war.  (3)  The  only  right 
that  the  United  States  thus  had  as  against 
these  vessels  was  to  requisition  them. 
This  right  was  exercised.  Requisition 
does  not  carry  ownership  with  it.  Requi- 
sition carries  with  it,  on  the  contrary,  re- 
sponsibility both  for  safety  and  for  the 
use  of  the  requisitioned  property.  Under 
international  law.  the  owners  of  the  Ger- 
man ships  therefore  have  the  right  to  col- 
lect from  the  United  States  after  the 
termination  of  the  war,  whatever  may  be 
justly  due  for  the  use  of  their  ships,  de- 
preciation and  damage. 

Q. — But  is  it  fair  to  pay  for  ships 
that  the  enemy  sinks? 

A. — It  would  hardly  be  possible  for 
public  opinion  in  the  United  States  to  see 
anything  but  crying  injustice  in  any  claim 


by  Germany  for  payment.  No  doubt  this 
public  opinion  will  play  a  great  part  in 
the  final  adjustment  of  the  question. 

Q. — Are  there  no  legal  points  to 
justify  non-payment  for  ships 
thus  sunk? 

A. — There  are  many;  but  before  we 
enumerate  them  we  must  explain  that  the 
legal  points  that  justly  tell  against  the 
German  Government  do  not  necessarily 
tell  against  the  private  German  owners  of 
the  ships ;  and  it  is  the  private  German 
owner  who  has  the  claim  under  interna- 
tional law.  However,  even  this  matter 
may  develop  an  interesting  point,  viz.,  that 
possibly  the  German  Government  is  part 
owner  in  at  least  some  of  these  vessels, 
by  virtue  either  of  stock  ownership  or  of 
laws  designed  to  encourage  German  ship- 
ping. 

As  against  the  German  Government,  the 
United  States  could  maintain  that  what- 
ever ships  were  sunk  were  so  sunk  ille- 
gally. To  this  the  German  Government 
would  respond,  no  doubt,  that  (i)  the 
German  war  zone  orders  were  justified  as 
reprisal  against  Allied  violations  of  laws 
of  blockade;  (2)  that  armed  merchant 
vessels,  and  merchant  vessels  armed  or 
unarmed,  under  convoy  were  subject  to 
attack  without  previous  visit  and  search. 

Q. — Why  did  we  not  seize  the  Ger- 
man ships  in  the  Danish  Is- 
lands ? 

A. — It  had  been  generally  assumed  that 
these  vessels,  like  other  enemy  craft  shel- 
tering in  American  harbors,  could  be 
commandeered  when  the  United  States 
declared  war  against  Germany  It  has 
been  found,  however,  that  in  the  deed  of 
sale  it  was  specifically  stipulated  that  the 
German  vessels  in  the  harbors  of  the 
Danish  West  Indies  should  not  be  com- 
mandeered in  the  event  of  the  United 
States  going  to  war  with  Germany.  They 
remain,  therefore,  in  the  harbors  of  what 
are  now  known  as  the  Virgin  Islands,  and 
cannot  be  touched. 

Q. — What  happened  to  German 
ships  in  the  Suez  Canal? 

A. — There  were  seven,  and  as  they 
could  not  get  away  they  remained  in  the 
Canal.  _  Ultimately,  the  British  Govern- 
ment insisted  that  the  directors  of  the 
company  should  instruct  them  to  leave 
as  they  were  obviously  not  utilizing  the 
canal  for  its  proper  purpose,  but  were 
sheltering  themselves  there  in  the  sanctu- 
tuary  created  by  the  internationalization 


American  Ship  Seizures 


259 


of  this  waterway.  As  they  were  not 
granted  right  of  passage  to  home  ports, 
and  yet  had  to  leave  the  canal,  they  have, 
presumably,  passed  into  British  hands. 

Q. — What  British  ships  were  seized 
in  German  ports? 

A. — Seventy-four,  with  a  total  tonnage 
of  170,000. 

Q. — What     German     ships     were 

seized  in  British  ports? 
A. — One  hundred  and  two,  with  a  ton- 
nage of  200,000.  In  addition,  88  were  cap- 
tured, aggregating  338,000  tons,  and  168 
of  283,000  tons,  were  detained  in  the  ports 
of  France,  Belgium  and  Russia,  chiefly 
at  Antwerp. 

Q. — Did  the  Allies  seize  German 
ships  in  Greek  harbors? 

A. — It  was  announced  that  when  the 
Allies  occupied  the  wireless  station,  tele- 
graph offices,  the  post-offices,  and  the  Cus- 
toms at  the  Piraeus  in  1917,  a  launch  from 
a  French  cruiser  visited  the  four  German 
East  African  steamers  which  had  lain 
in  the  harbor  since  the  outbreak  of  war, 
hoisted  the  French  flag  on  each  ship,  and 
left  a  detachment  of  French  soldiers  on 
board,  after  arresting  the  few  Germans 
found  on  the  vessels.  At  the  same  time, 
the  Hamburg-American  liner,  Marienbad, 
was  seized  in  the  Gulf  of  Salamis,  and 
another  ship  was  taken  over  in  the  har- 
bor of  Lyra. 

Q. — Who  purchased  the  "Dacia"? 

A. — This  is  the  ship  about  which  there 
was  so  much  controversy  during  1915. 
She  was  a  German  vessel,  and  was  pur- 
chased by  an  American  of  German 
descent  named  E.  M.  Breitung.  He  paid 
$165,000  for  the  ship,  loaded  her  with 
$750,000  worth  of  cotton,  which  was  to 
be  carried  to  a  German  port  for  $190,000 
freight  money.  At  that  time  cotton  was 
not  contraband  of  war,  and  it  was  gener- 
ally understood  that  Great  Britain  recog- 
nized as  legal  the  transfer  of  an  enemy 
ship  to  a  neutral  citizen.  The  matter  was 
solved,  however,  by  the  Dacia  being  cap- 
tured by  a  French  cruiser,  as  France  does 
not  recognize  the  transfer  of  an  enemy 
ship  to  a  neutral  during  war  time. 

Q. — If  a  British  ship  is  sunk,  will 
the  British  Government  make 
good  the  loss? 

A. — It  is  hardly  probable.  In  any  case 
the  loss  would  not  fall  on  the  shipping 


company,  but  on  the  underwriters,  and 
as  the  government  has  offered  insurance 
on  lower  terms  than  Lloyds,  much  of  the 
loss  has  actually  been  borne  by  the  gov- 
ernment already.  The  Admiralty  does 
not  guarantee  protection  to  merchant- 
men. They  put  to  sea  at  their  own  risk. 

Q. — How  many  German  ships  were 
in  Portuguese  and  Italian 
ports? 

A.— -There  were  36  at  Lisbon  and  8  at 
St.  Vincent,  Cape  Verde  Islands,  and  2 
at  Goa.  There  were  37  German  vessels 
in  Italian  ports. 

Q. — Have  any  German  ships  es- 
caped from  neutral  ports? 

A. — About  the  middle  of  February,  1917, 
the  Bahrcnfeld  got  away  from  Buenos 
Ayres,  and  the  Turpin  from  Punta  Are- 
nas, Chili.  The  Asuncion  endeavored  to 
escape  from  Para,  but  was  prevented  by 
Brazilian  cruisers.  Rumors  of  other  ves- 
sels stealing  away  have  been  many,  but 
probably  most. of  them  are  incorrect. 

Q. — How  many  German  ships  did 
the  Allies  capture  in  the  Cam- 
eroons  ? 

A. — There  appear  to  have  been  sixteen 
steamers  lying  in  Duala  harbor  when  the 
place  was  occupied.  Eleven  of  these  were 
Woermann  Line  steamers.  As  these  are 
properly  prizes  of  war,  some  of  them 
have  since  been  sold.  The  Elder-Demp- 
ster Company,  which  has  lost  nine  steam- 
ers at  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  including 
the  Appam  and  the  Falaba,  purchased  one 
of  the  Woermann  liners  at  a  prize  sale, 
and  renamed  it  the  Gold  Coast. 

Q. — What  was  the  "Appam"  case? 

A. — The  British  merchant  ship  Appam 
was  captured  by  the  German  raiding  crui- 
ser Moewe  (Gull)  on  January  15,  1916. 
A  German  prize  crew  was  put  aboard, 
and  while  the  Moewe  continued  her  cruise, 
the  Appam  was  brought  safely  westward 
and  succeeded  in  passing  the  British  cor- 
don off  Chesapeake  Bay  and  anchoring 
safely  in  Hampton  Roads. 

Q. — Did  the  Germans  have  the 
right  to  bring  a  prize  into 
American  ports? 

A. — They  did.  But  the  question  arose 
whether  they  had  the  right  to  keep  her 
there,  and  thus  use  American  ports  as  an 
asylum  for  prize  ships.  The  Germans 


260  Questions  and  Answers 

claimed    that    provisions    in    the    United  by  the  capturing  vessel.     This  view  was 

States-Prussian  treaties  of  1790  and  1828  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  a  decision 

conferred  this  special  right.     The  United  handed  down  March  6,  1917.    The  result 

States  claimed  that  the  clauses  cited  did  was  that  the  Appam  finally  was  turned 

not  permit  the  entry  of  a  prize  unattended  back  to  her  British  owners. 


THE  WORLD'S  SHIPS  OF  PEACE 


Q. — How  fast  is  our  Atlantic  mer- 
chant fleet  growing? 

A. — In  July,  1917,  some  ships  in  the 
Pacific  were  transferred  to  the  Atlantic. 
In  August,  1917,  the  Shipping  Board  asked 
Congress  for  another  appropriation  of 
$915,000  for  its  building  program.  This 
amount  would  be  used  for  purchase  and 
commandeering  of  materials  and  plants 
and  for  ship  construction.  Legislation 
was  asked  to  permit  ships  of  foreign  reg- 
ister to  engage  in  coastwise  trade. 

On  August  24,  1917,  nearly  3,000,000 
tons  of  shipping  was  ready  to  be  con- 
tracted for,  and  1,281,000  more  under  ne- 
gotiation at  a  total  estimated  cost  includ- 
ing cost  of  commandeering  and  the  pur- 
chase of  available  vessels  of  $915,000,000; 
of  this  fully  two-thirds  are  for  the  At- 
lantic fleet.  June  15,  1917,  all  power- 
driven  cargo-carrying  and  passenger  ves- 
sels above  2,500  tons  deadweight  capacity 
under  construction  in  any  yard,  and  ma- 
terials, equipment  and  outfit  thereto,  were 
requisitioned  by  the  United  States. 

Q. — How  much  shipping  did  this 
give  us? 

A. — On  September  26,  1917,  the  United 
States  had  458  ships  of  over  1,500  dead- 
weight tons  with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of 
2,871,359.  There  were  also  117  ships  ^of 
German  and  Austrian  origin,  totaling 
700,285  tons.  Four  hundred  ships  of  2,- 
500,000  tons  had  been  commandeered  and 
636  ships  with  3,124,700  tons  were  con- 
tracted for  by  the  U.  S.  Emergency  Fleet 
Corporation.  It  was  at  this  date  expected 
that  the  United  States  would  have  near 
the  end  of  1918  a  merchant  fleet  of  more 
than  i, 600  ships,  aggregating  9,200,000 
tons,  as  compared  with  an  overseas  ma- 
rine of  1,614,222  tons  on  June  30,  1914. 

Q. — How  did  we  get  Great  Lakes 
ships  to  the  Atlantic? 

A. — By  the  astonishing  process  of  cut- 
ting the  ships  in  half  and  towing  the 
pieces  through  to  the  St.  Lawrence 
river,  and  then  patching  the  ships  to- 
gether again.  In  the  last  part  of  1917, 
the  United  States  Government  comman- 
deered about  20  ships  from  the  coast- 
wise trade  and  then  went  to  work  to  re- 
place them  with  steamers  from  the  Great 
Lakes  fleet.  The  latter  were  from  275  to 


300  feet  long,  whereas  the  locks  of  the 
canals  would  not  accommodate  vessels  tof 
more  than  250  feet.  The  big  iron  ships 
were  cut  in  two  and  the  halves  were 
brought  through  the  locks  separately,  to 
be  spliced  together  again  in  the  St.  Law- 
rence River.  Most  of  the  ships  were 
brought  together  again  and  made  whole 
in  the  water  without  dry-docking.  Divers^ 
bolted  the  halves  together  and  the  sides 
were  securely  united  by  heavy  steel  tie- 
plates. 

Q. — How  much  money  has  been  in- 
vested in  American  shipping? 

A. — Since  the  war  began  a  total  of 
$401,749,000  has  been  invested  in  ship 
firms  in  this  country.  For  January,  1918, 
alone  the  amount  was  $21,274,000.  There 
were  nineteen  new  ship  firms  incorporated 
in  January.  Of  the  $21,274,000  invested, 
$6,650,000  was  designated  for  shipbuild- 
ing and  $14,624,000  for  other  shipping 
projects.  The  development  over  the  en- 
tire war-period  is  shown  in  the  follow- 
ing table  compiled  for  The  Journal  of 
Commerce,  which  sets  forth  the  author- 
ized capital  of  new  concerns : 

Five  months,  1914 $1,844,000 

Year  1915  37,662,000 

Year  1916 69,466,000 

Year  1917 271,503,000 

Q. — How    many    shipyards    have 
we? 

A. — Six  years  ago  the  United  States 
had  barely  seven  shipyards.  To-day  these 
seven  yards  and  132  others  are  working 
night  and  day,  two  and  three  shifts  at  a 
time,  turning  out  vessels  for  the  Emer- 
gency Shipping  Board.  The  shipyards  are 
scattered  throughout  the  United  States 
from  Fore  River,  Boston  and  Newark 
Bay,  Delaware,  New  York,  Philadelphia, 
Newport  News,  clear  around  Mobile  on 
the  south,  to  Seattle  and  Tacoma  on  the 
west. 

Q. — What  is  meant  by  a  "stand- 
ardized" ship? 

A. — It  is  a  ship  the  parts  of  which  can 
be  manufactured  in  multiples  of  tens  and 
hundreds  of  thousands,  then  assembled  in 
a  shipbuilding  plant.  In  Great  Britain, 
standardizing  of  ships  has  been  in  vogue 


261 


262 


Questions  and  Answers 


for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  decreasing  the 
cost  of  ships  50  per  cent.  Under  this 
plan,  one  shipyard  may  limit  itself  to  only 
one  size  and  type  of  ship.  The  parts,  all 
alike,  can  be  manufactured  in  many  dif- 
ferent factories  in  any  desired  quantity — 
plates  in  one,  boilers  in  another,  engines 
in  another,  rivets  in  another.  The  ship- 
yard thus  would  be  the  assembling  plant 
merely.  The  benefits  gained  from  stand- 
ardizing are  decreased  cost  and  increased 
speed. 

Q. — What  were  the  chief  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  the  immense 
program? 

A. — It  might  be  accurate  to  say  that  a 
number  of  difficulties  were  so  great  as 
well  to  make  them  all  "chief"  in  rank. 
The  supply  of  man-labor  was  a  vast  prob- 
lem. The  production  of  enough  material 
was  another.  The  transportation  of  this 
material  was  still  another.  Each  of  these 
great  problems  was  independent  of  the 
rest,  yet  not  one  of  the  problems  could 
be  solved  satisfactorily  without  solving 
the  others  simultaneously.  Other  difficul- 
ties, minor  in  comparison,  but  actually 
enormous  in  specific  aspect  were :  TI  ) 
'.erecting  shipyards,  (2)  providing  housing 
and  food  supply  for  labor,  (3)  financing 
the  vast  expenditures,  (4)  fuel,  (5)  ad- 
justing all  these  imperative  needs  to  the 
equally  imperative  needs  of  other  indus- 
tries, and  to  the  absolutely  imperative 
needs  of  the  army  and  navy. 

Q.— What  was  the  "Great  Shipyard 
Drive"? 

A. — On  January  28,  1918,  the  United 
States  government  employment  service 
began  a  nation-wide  campaign  to  enlist 
workers  for  the  shipyards.  State  direc- 
tors of  the  Public  Service  Reserve  con- 
ducted the  drive  in  the  various  states. 

Q. — Have  we  a  training  ship  for 
the  merchant  marine? 

A. — Yes.  The  first  training  ship  of  the 
United  States  Merchant  Marine,  the  Cal- 
vin Austin,  brought  its  first  graduates  to 
New  York  in  March,  1918,  and  the  men 
were  placed  in  their  first  positions.  The 
Calvin  Austin  is  stationed  regularly  at 
Boston,  where  the  Recruiting  Service  of 
the  Shipping  Board  has  its  headquarters. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  ships  can  be 
built  of  concrete? 

A. — Yes.  The  Shipping  Board  gave 
contracts  in  February,  1918,  for  ten  such 


craft  to  be  constructed  by  the  Ferro  Con- 
crete Shipbuilding  Corporation  of  Re- 
dondo  Beach,  Cal.  The  vessels  were  to 
be  of  3,500  tons.  In  March,  1918,  the  first 
large  concrete  ship  was  launched  on  the 
Pacific  coast.  The  craft  was  5,000  tons 
and  named  Faith. 

Q. — When  was  the  concrete  ship 
invented? 

A. — The  first  craft  made  of  reinforced 
concrete  was  a  small  one,  built  by  a 
Frenchman  in  1849.  Before  1900  some 
barges  of  about  100  tons  were  in  use  in 
Italy  and  Holland.  In  1900  a  large  200- 
ton  barge  for  river  traffic  was  built  in 
Germany,  and  by  1918  concrete  barges 
varying  in  capacity  up  to  700  tons  were 
being  used  in  the  Panama  Canal,  the  Wel- 
land  Ship  Canal,  the  Manchester  Ship 
Canal  in  England,  and  in  the  harbors  of 
San  Francisco,  Baltimore,  and  Sydney, 
New  South  Wales. 

Q. — Who  built  the  first  big  con- 
crete vessel? 

A. — Norway.  A  40O-ton  ship  was 
launched  in  1917,  and  it  has  been  an- 
nounced that  regular  ocean-going  cargo 
vessels  are  to  follow.  They  are  to  be  as 
big  as  5,000  tons,  though  those  now  being 
designed  or  constructed  appear  to  be 
from  3,000  to  4,000  tons.  Instead  of  using 
steam,  they  will  be  propelled  by  gigantic 
Diesel  oil-motors. 

Q. — What  was  the  result  of  nego- 
tiations with  the  Swedish  Gov- 
ernment over  shipping? 

A. — Late  in  January,  1918,  preliminary 
agreement  was  made  with  Sweden 
through  conferences  in  London,  provid- 
ing for  the  charter  of  Swedish  ships  to 
the  United  States,  to  be  used  principally 
for  South  American  trade.  It  was  an- 
nounced that  some  of  the  Swedish  vessels 
which  had  been  held  in  American  waters 
would  be  allowed  to  sail  with  their 
cargoes. 

Q. — How  many  ships  of  10,000 
tons  are  there  in  the  world? 

A. — A  good  number  have  been  sunk 
during  the  war,  and  a  few  may  have  been 
launched.  In  1914  there  were  130  British 
ships  of  this  size  afloat,  and  some  15 
launched  or  building.  There  were  40 
German  afloat,  and  half  a  dozen  building 
or  just  launched.  The  United  States  had 


The  World's  Ships  of  Peace 


263 


9,  France  15,  Holland  7,  Japan  4,  and 
Belgium  5.  Altogether,  afloat,  launched 
and  building,  there  were  about  250. 

Q. — What  is  the  increased  capacity 
of  British  ships  owing  to  sanc- 
tioning of  deck  loads  ? 

A. — Some  shipping  experts  assert  that 
by  deck  loading,  and  the  permission  given 
to  load  ships  down  to  the  "Indian  Sum- 
mer" Plimsoll  mark,  no  less  than  500,000 
tons  was  in  effect  added  to  the  British 
mercantile  marine. 

Q. — What  is  the  Plimsoll  mark? 

A. — It  is  a  government  mark  painted  on 
the  sides  of  British  ships  to  denote  the 
maximum  depth  to  which  they  may  be 
sunk  by  loading.  There  is  a  "summer 
mark"  and  a  "winter  mark,"  the  loads 
permitted  for  summer  being  greater  be- 
cause the  better  weather  permits  less  free 
board.  The  name  "Plimsoll"  comes  from 
the  name  of  the  member  of  Parliament 
who  worked  for  the  law. 

Q. — When  a  ship  is  said  to  be  5,000 
tons,  does  that  mean  its  cargo 
capacity  is  5,000  tons? 

A. — That  is  generally  assumed,  and,  on 
that  assumption,  various  very  wild  calcu- 
lations have  been  made  and  are  made  by 
laymen.  As  a  matter  of  fact  a  ship's 
"tonnage"  is  really  its  displacement,  thai 
is  to  say,  the  weight  of  the  water  it  dis- 
places when  afloat.  This  measurement  is 
used  for  all  warships,  which  always  carry 
their  full  load.  A  different  method  of 
measurement  is  generally  employed  in  cal- 
culating the  tonnage  of  a  merchant  ship, 
and  as  a  rule  a  warship  of  exactly  the 
same  size  as  a  merchant  ship  will  be  reg- 
istered at  a  considerably  higher  tonnage. 
Roughly,  but  quite  roughly,  the  cargo  ca- 
pacity of  a  boat  is  just  about  double  its 
registered  tonnage.  That  is,  a  steamship 
of  5,000  tons  register  would  have  a  cargo 
capacity  of  about  10,000  tons.  This  is  a 
case  where  a  quart  can  apparently  be  put 
into  a  pint  pot ! 

Q. — Is  the  draught  of  the  largest 
merchant  ships  greater  than 
that  of  dreadnaughts? 

A. — The  biggest  merchant  ships  are  a 
great  deal  larger  than  the  most  powerful 
dreadnaughts,  and  have  a  considerably 
deeper  draught.  The  following  table  com- 
paring pre-war  battleships  and  merchant- 


men,  gives   the   information   up   to   the 
war: — 


g  J 

rt          •£ 

bo 

o       £ 


Q. 

in 


)          03  Q         t 

Feet.  Feet.  Feet.  Knots. 

Dreadnaught  battleship — 

22,500    545    88y2  27.5    27,000    23 
Battle-cruiser — 

26,350    660    86^  27.5    70,000    34.7 
Titanic — 

46,000    882    92}^  34.6    47,000    20 
Britannic — 

54,000    924    94  35       60,000    23 
Imperator — 

50,000    905    98  35       60,000    22 

Q. — Are  French  shipyards  making 
good  shipping  losses? 

A. — Apparently  nothing  very  definite 
has  been  done.  The  shipbuilders  and 
shipowners  complain  that  the  Government 
has,  as  yet,  taken  no  measures  to  enable 
the  shipyards  to  secure  the  necessary  raw 
materials,  and  the  Committee  of  Ship- 
owners has  decided  unanimously  "once 
again  to  call  attention  to  the  danger  that 
threatens  the  French  merchant  marine  of 
disappearing,  if  the  shipyards  are  not  in 
a  position  to  construct  vessels  with  the 
shortest  possible  delay."  The  Italian  Gov- 
ernment appears  to  be  fully  alive  to  the 
need  of  adding  to  its  merchant  marine, 
and  voted  a  sum  of  165,000,000  lire  ($30,- 
000,000)  for  the  construction  of  merchant 
vessels  during  1917. 

Q. — Are  many  foreign  sailors  in  the 
British  mercantile  marine? 

A. — The  figures  for  1913  were  as  fol- 
lows : — 

British   212,570 

Lascars  and  Asiatics 46,848 

Foreigners 32,639 

Of  these  70,622  were  engaged  exclus- 
ively in  home  trade,  25,000  being  on  fish- 
ing vessels ;  10,244  were  in  vessels  en- 
gaged partly  in  home  and  partly  in  over- 
sea trade. 

We  may  assume  that  practically  all 
these  70,000  were  British,  which  would 
leave  142,000  British  for  foreign  trade, 
and  79,000  Lascars  and  foreigners.  It 
appears,  therefore,  that  the  proportion  in 
the  British  oversea  mercantile  marine  is 
not  quite  two  British  seamen  to  one  for- 
eigner. 


264 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q._ Was  the  "Lusitania"  the  fa- 
mous Atlantic  "greyhound"? 

A. — Yes.  This  was  the  first  great  Brit- 
ish ship  built  for  the  American  trade, 
which  was  fitted  with  turbine  engines. 
She  and  her  sister  ship,  the  Mauretania, 
won  the  blue  ribbon  of  the  Atlantic  from 
the  Germans,  who  had  held  it  for  some 
years.  The  Lucania,  with  the  Campania, 
held  it  before  the  Germans  captured  it, 
with  the  Deutschland,  in  1900.  The  Lusi- 
tania was  built  in  1907,  and  displaced 
31,550  tons.  The  Britannic,  sunk  in  the 
war,  had  a  tonnage  of  54,000. 

Q. — How  were  the  losses  of  British 
ships  and  cargo  covered  when 
sunk  by  submarines? 

A. — Both  ships  and  cargo  were  insured 
by  the  Government,  and  this  is  how  it 
happens  that  the  loss  of  ships  has  actually 
shown  a  profit  on  some  of  the  ledgers  of 
British  shipping  companies.  Bonar  Law 
made  a  statement  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons concerning  the  profits  he  had  made 
on  his  shipping  investments.  He  invested 
the  sum  of  £8,100  in  fifteen  shipping  com- 
panies running  tramp  steamers.  Five  per 
cent  on  that  amount  would  be  £405,  but 
he  received  £3,615  in  dividends  in  1915, 
and  £3,847  in  dividends  in  1916,  after  pay- 
ing excess  profits. 

Q. — Did  British  Colonies  limit  Ger- 
man ships  trading  to  their 
ports? 

A. — There  was  no  limitation  at  all. 
The  more  ships  came  into  Dominion  ports 


the  better  pleased  the  Dominions  were. 
The  German  ships  carried  much  cargo 
between  Great  Britain  and  the  outlying 
parts  of  the  empire,  and  one  such  port 
at  any  rate  owed  its  prosperity  very 
largely  to  German  ships. 

German  vessels  running  along  the.  east 
coast  of  Africa  took  the  produce  of  Brit- 
ish East  Africa  to  England  at  a  price 
which  allowed  a  profit  to  be  made.  The 
rates  charged  by  the  British  ships,  on  the 
other  hand,  made  it  not  worth  while  send- 
ing the  produce  of  this  particular  de- 
pendency home. 

Much  of  the  West  Indian  trade  was 
in  German  ships,  notably  the  trade  be- 
tween New  York  and  Jamaica. 


Q. — Is  Germany's  great  merchant 
fleet  based  on  government  sub- 
sidy? 

A. — That  is  the  generally  accepted  ex- 
planation that  is  advanced  for  the  fact 
that  the  Germans  have  in  many  cases 
beaten  British  shipping  companies,  but, 
like  so  many  other  accepted  ideas,  it  has 
little  or  no  basis  in  fact. 


Q. — Do  not  the  German  companies 
receive  large  grants? 

A. — The  grants  they  got  were  in  the 
form  of  payments  for  the  carriage  of 
mails,  as  the  British  Orient  and  P.  and  O. 
and  as  American  ships  do  or  may.  The 
following  comparison  is  interesting: 


SUBSIDIES  PAID  TO  STEAMSHIP  COMPANIES  IN  CONNECTION  WITH  AUSTRALIAN 

SERVICE 

Voyages      Total  No.  of  Amount  of 

Company.                                   per             Miles  run  Subsidy.  Subsidy 

Year.           per  Year.  per  Mile. 

Norddeutscher  Lloyd 13              342,420  £95,000  55. 6^d. 

P.  and  O.  Line 26               652,860  146,500  45. 5^d. 

Orient   Line    26              692,640  173,400  55. 

Mcssageries  Maritimes   13               315,198  48,760  35.     id. 

From  this  table  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  not  a  very  great  difference  be- 
tween the  British  and  German  "subsidy."  Still  more  interesting  is  the  following 
comparison  between  the  subsidies  for  the  carriage  of  mails  paid  to  the  different 
companies  in  connection  with  their  Eastern  services. 

Voyages      Total  No.  of  Amount  of 

Company.                                per            Miles  run  Subsidy.  Subsidy 

Year.          per  Year.  per  Mile. 

Norddeutscher  Lloyd 26              675,246  £171,000  55.1 

P.  and  O.  Line 26               731,120  164,500  4S- 

Messageries  Maritimes   26               528,372  228,950  8s. 

Gesellschaft  Nederland  26               494,ooo  26,500  is.< 

Rotterdamsche  Lloyd 26               468,000  26,500  is. 


The  World's  Ships  of  Peace  265 

Oesterreichischer  Lloyd   12  235,715  34,6oo  2s. 

Societa  Marthina 13  "7,499  68,400  us. 

(Genoa-Bombay) 

Nippon  Yusen  Kaisha  26  639,808  316,900  9s. 

According  to  these  figures  the  Norddeutscher  Lloyd  is  not  a  "hot  house" 
product  unless  the  French,  Italian  and  Japanese  lines  be  accused  of  being  arti- 
ficially fostered. 


EUROPEAN  TRADE  ARTERIES 


Q. — Is  the  Danube  the  longest  river 
in  Europe? 

A.— No.  The  longest  is  the  Volga 
(2,000  miles),  a  river  entirely  in  Russian 
territory.  Authorities  differ  as  to  its  ex- 
act length.  Strelbitsky,  the  greatest  au- 
thority on  European  rivers,  puts  it  at 
1,977  miles,  but  General  von  Tillo,  another 
expert,  says  it  is  2,107  miles  long.  It 
drains  a  huge  area,  no  less  than  560,000 
square  miles,  and  the  most  fertile  part 
oi  Russia  is  in  this  basin,  which  supports 
no  less  than  40,000,000  people.  It  empties 
into  the  Caspian  Sea,  but,  by  means  of 
canals  linking  up  with  other  rivers,  it  is 
actually  connected  with  the  Baltic. 

Q. — How  long  is  the  Danube? 

A. — The  Danube  is  1,644  miles  long,  but 
has  a  basin  of  only  315,000  square  miles. 
It  is,  however,  a  far  more  notable  stream 
than  the  Volga,  has  a  much  greater  dis- 
charge of  water,  and  has  an  international 
importance  greater  than  any  other  river 
in  the  world. 

Q. — What  are  the  next  longest  Eu- 
ropean rivers? 

A. — The  river  next  in  size  is  the  Ural, 
1,446  miles;  then  the  Dnieper,  1,164  miles, 
in  whose  basin  dwell  28,000,000  people ; 
then  the  Kama,  1,115  miles;  then  the  Don, 
I, no  miles;  and  then  the  Pechora,  1,024 
miles.  All  these  are  Russian  rivers,  so, 
too,  are  the  Oka,  914  miles,  and  the  Dnies- 
ter, 835  miles. 

After  them  comes  the  Rhine,  which  is 
only  709  miles  long,  but  the  position  of 
which  makes  it  second  only  in  importance 
to  the  Danube  among  European  streams. 

Q. — Is  the  Danube  navigable  for 
heavy  tonnage? 

A. — The  central  channel,  called  the  Su- 
lina,  is  the  one  now  used  through  the 
Delta.  From  its  mouth  to  Braila  the 
Danube  is  navigable  for  sea-going  ships 
up  to  4,000  tons  register.  From  Braila 
almost  to  the  Iron  Gates  sea-going  ships 
of  600  tons  can  use  the  river,  and  barges 
of  some  2,000  tons  capacity  navigate  it. 
From  the  Iron  Gates  to  Vienna  barges 
drawing  five  feet  of  water  are  used. 
From  Vienna  to  Regensberg  it  is  possible 
for  barges  of  600  tons  register  to  be 
towed  up  against  the  rapid  stream.  A 
canal  connects  the  Danube  with  the 


Mainz,  which  flows  into  the  Rhine  at 
Mainz.  It  is  said  that  the  Germans  are 
already  engaged  on  a  scheme  for  join- 
ing the  Rhine  and  the  Danube  by  a  deep 
canal,  which  will  permit  the  passage  of 
very  large  barges,  and  thus  link  the  Black 
and  the  North  Seas. 

Q. — How  wide  and  how  deep  is  the 
Rhine? 

A. — At  the  Swiss  frontier  it  is  only  189 
yards  wide.  At  Mannheim  it  is  429,  at 
Mayence  402,  at  Coblenz  399,  at  Bonn  532, 
at  Cologne  433,  at  Dusseldorf  409,  and  at 
the  Dutch  frontier  909.  From  Mayence 
to  Dusseldorf  it  varies  from  9  to  76  feet 
in  depth.  Above  Mayence  it  is  never 
deeper  than  25  feet,  and  it  shoals  to  as 
little  as  three  feet  in  places. 

Q. — What  is  the  Rhine  Navigation 
Treaty? 

A. — It  is  a  convention  which  gives  to 
Germany  the  right  of  conveying  ship- 
ments through  the  Netherlands  by  way 
of  the  Rhine  without  let  or  hindrance. 
The  Dutch  authorities  are  not  permitted 
to  examine  the  cargo  at  all,  their  privi- 
leges being  limited  to  an  examination  of 
the  ship's  papers. 

Q. — Is  the  Scheldt  a  Dutch  or  a 
Belgian  river? 

A.— It  is  a  Dutch  river.  The  Scheldt 
enters  Holland  eleven  miles  after  it  leaves 
Antwerp,  and  runs  for  fifty  miles  through 
Dutch  territory  to  the  sea.  It  is,  there- 
fore, in  Dutch  territorial  waters,  and, 
although  it  is  a  trade-free  river,  its  neu- 
trality must  be  respected. 

Q. — What  is  a  trade-free  river? 

A. — A  river  on  which  no  tolls  are 
charged,  and  which  is  entirely  free  to 
the  shipping  of  the  world.  Up  to  1863 
Holland  had  the  right  to,  and  did,  levy 
a  toll  of  3  shillings  (about  75  cents)  a 
ton  on  all  ships  using  the  Scheldt  to  reach 
Antwerp.  This  absolutely  throttled  the 
port  of  Antwerp,  and,  after  many  at- 
tempts, a  conference  of  twenty-one  Pow- 
ers and  States  held  at  Brussels,  was  suc- 
cessful in  arranging  a  treaty  freeing  the 
Scheldt.  Belgium  and  the  other  inter- 
ested Powers  bought  the  toll  right  from 
Holland  for  about  $7,200,000,  of  which 
sum  Belgium  paid  about  $2,400,000.  Since 


266 


European  Trade  Arteries 


26; 


then  Antwerp  has  gone  ahead  by  leaps 
and  bounds.  With  its  suburbs  it  had  a 
population  of  about  360,000  before  the 
war.  Of  these,  16,000  were  Dutch,  and 
10,000  Germans. 

Q. — How  long  is  the  Kiel  Canal  ? 

A. — Sixty-one  miles,  a  few  miles  longer 
than  that  of  Panama.  The  Suez  Canal 
is  almost  100  miles  long,  and  cost  about 
$125,000,000  to  build.  The  Panama  Canal, 
fifty  miles  long,  cost  $372,000,000. 

Q.— What  was  the  cost  of  the  Kiel 
Canal? 

A. — The  proper  name  of  the  canal  is 
the  Kaiser  Wilhelm  Canal.  Its  original 
cost  was  $39,000,000.  The  reconstruction 
cost  $55,000,000.  It  was  2gl/2  feet  deep, 
but  has  been  deepened  and  widened,  so 
that  it  can  take  the  greatest  dreadnaught 
afloat.  The  sluices  at  the  Baltic  end  are 
1,072  feet  long,  and  145  feet  wide,  and 
are  the  largest  in  the  world. 

Q. — Who  owns  the  Suez  Canal? 

A. — The  shareholders  of  the  Egyptian 
Company,  which  was  formed  by  M.  de 
Lesseps  to  build  it.  The  original  capital 
was  £8,000,000  in  400,000  shares  of  £20 
each.  France  originally  took  200,000  of 
these,  the  Ottoman  Empire  took  06,000. 
Of  the  remaining  'shares  the  Viceroy  of 
Egypt  obtained  85,506.  England,  Aus- 
tria, Russia  and  the  United  States  would 
have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  pro- 
jected canal,  the  cutting  of  which  was 
strongly  objected  to  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment. Lord  Palmerston  told  de  Les- 
seps, when  he  went  to  London  to  raise 
money,  that,  in  the  opinion  of  British  ex- 
perts, the  making  of  a  canal  between  the 
Mediterranean  and  the  Red  Sea  was  a 
physical  impossibility,  the  levels  of  the 
two  seas  not  being  the  same.  However,  in 
l&75,  when  the  Khedive  of  Egypt,  being 
hard  pressed  for  money,  tried  to  sell  the 
shares  he  held — those  of  the  former  Vice- 
roy and  those  taken  up  by  the  Turkish 
Government — to  a  French  syndicate,  the 
British  Government  stepped  in,  and  pur- 
chased the  lot,  176,602  shares  in  all,  for 
£3,976,582.  This  was  about  their  face 
value  at  the  time.  Those  shares  are  now 
worth  £30,000,000! 

Q. — Who  was  responsible  for  this 
purchase? 

A.— Lord  Beaconsfield  generally  gets 
the  credit  for  this  coup,  which  gave  Great 
Britain  virtual  control  of  the  canal. 


Q. — How  do  the  railways  of  Eu- 
rope compare? 

A. — According  to  the  latest  pre-war 
figures,  Germany  had  39,000  miles  of  rail- 
way; France,  31,000;  United  Kingdom, 
23,420;  Russia,  46,000;  and  Italy,  i:,ooo. 
Since  1880  the  total  receipts  of  the  Ger- 
man railways  have  gone  up  nearly  four 
times,  and  the  ton  mileage  more  than 
four  times.  In  that  same  time  the  British 
receipts  and  ton  mileage  have  just  about 
doubled. 

Q. — Is  the  telegraph  used  as  much 
on  the  Continent  of  Europe  as 
in  England? 

A. — Much  more  than  in  England.  Ger- 
many has  142,000  miles  of  telegraph  line ; 
France  has  114,000,  the  United  Kingdom 
61,000.  There  are  50,000  postoffices  in 
Germany,  14,000  in  France,  and  24,000  in 
the  United  Kingdom.  There  are  72  let- 
ters per  head  written  in  Great  Britain 
and  only  49  per  head  in  Germany.  In 
France  there  are  40,  in  Russia  10,  and  in 
Italy  ii  per  head. 

Q. — What  is  the  line  of  the  Berlin- 
Bagdad  Railroad? 

A. — It  starts  really  at  the  Elbe  North 
Sea  port  of  Hamburg,  running  down  Elbe 
valley  to  Berlin.  Thence  it  goes  south- 
ward through  Prussian  Brandenburg, 
largely  continuing  along  the  Elbe  val- 
ley. Still  directed  southward,  it  crosses 
Saxony,  touching  the  Saxon  city,  Dres- 
den, and  then  pierces  the  Erz  Gebirge 
(Ore  Mountains),  descending  into  Bo- 
hemia, and  passing  through  the  Bohemian 
city  of  Prague. 

Thence  it  goes  southeasterly  to  Vi- 
enna. From  Vienna  it  follows  the  Dan- 
ube valley  to  Budapest  and,  passing 
along  the  northern  side  of  the  Danube, 
in  Hungarian  territory,  it  goes  to  the 
Serbian  capital  Belgrade. 

Continuing  southeasterly,  it  crosses  Ser- 
bia and  reaches  the  Bulgarian  capital  So- 
fia. Traversing  southern  Bulgaria,  it 
reaches  Turkish  Adrianpple  and  then  Con- 
stantinople. From  Haidar-Pasha  on  the 
Bosporus,  opposite  Constantinople,  it  ex- 
tends through  Asiatic  Turkey  into  Meso- 
potamia, touching  Mosul,  and  so  to  Bag- 
dad. 

Q. — When  was  the  Berlin-Bagdad 
Railroad  begun? 

A. — It  was  begun  about  1900  when  a 
German  company  obtained  concessions 


268 


Questions  and  Answers 


from  the  Sultan  for  the  line  from  Con- 
stantinople to  Bagdad.  The  intention  was 
ultimately  to  extend  from  Bagdad  to  the 
Persian  Gulf. 


Q. — Does  it  tap  rich  country? 

A. — It  taps  thousands  of  miles  of  neg- 
lected country  with  bi^  possibilities,  but, 
to  bring  these  possibilities  into  being,  vast 
projects  of  reclamation,  irrigation,  colo- 
nization by  agricultural  laborers,  etc.,  are 
necessary.  Many  of  these  projects  have 
been  begun. 

Q. — How  many  miles   is  it  from 
Berlin  to  Bagdad? 

A. — In  direct  air-line  it  is  2,000  miles. 
By  rail,  when  the  missing  link  in  the  Bag- 
dad railway  is  completed,  it  will  be  about 
2,650  miles.  The  Germans  propose  build- 
ing a  great  bridge  across  the  Hellespont, 
and,  if  that  were  done,  it  would  be  pos- 
sible to  travel  in  one  of  the  carriages  of 
the  Compagnie  Internationale  des  Wagon 
Lits  from  Calais  in  France,  on  the  Eng- 
lish Channel,  to  Koweit,  on  the  Persian 
Gulf,  a  distance  of  some  3,000  miles,  with- 
out a  change,  as  the  Bagdad  railway  is 
of  standard  gauge. 

Q. — Has  the  Bagdad  railway  really 
been  completed? 

A. — Various  statements  have  been  made 
about  it.  It  is  known  definitely  that  the 
connecting  link  through  the  Taurus 
Mountains  was  completed  in  1914,  and  at 
that  time  the  section  from  Aleppo  to  Ras- 
el-ain — 86  miles — was  finished.  When  the 
war  broke  out,  or  shortly  afterward,  the 
rails  had  been  laid  from  Bagdad  to  Sa- 
marra,  88  miles.  It  is  probable  that  the 
link  between  Ras-el-ain  and  Mosul  (200 
miles)  has  also  been  finished,  but  it  is  im- 
probable that  the  line  from  Mosul  to  Sa- 
marra,  a  distance  of  160  miles,  has  been 
laid. 


Q. — Does  a  direct  railroad  line  con- 
nect Odessa  with  Bucharest? 

A. — No.  A  railway  runs  from  Odessa 
to  Bender,  where  the  Dniester  is  crossed ; 
from  there  it  runs  south  to  Reni,  on  the 
Danube,  from  which  place  a  boat  is 
taken  to  Galatz,  a  distance  of  some  eight 
miles.  The  railway  to  Bucharest  from 
that  port  runs  through  Braila,  Buzen,  and 
Plpesci.  Another  route  can  be  taken,  but 
it  is  a  long  way  round,  through  Kishinef 
— the  capital  of  Bessarabia — to  Jassy, 
crossing  the  frontier  of  Ungheni,  where 
the  break  of  gauge  necessitates  changing 
trains.  From  the  present  capital  of  Rou- 
mania,  either  of  the  north-south  rail- 
ways can  be  taken  to  Bucharest. 

Q. — Have  all  railways  in  Europe 
the  same  gauge? 

A. — All  have  the  standard  4-ft.  Bl/2-in. 
gauge  except  Russia,  where  the  gauge  is 
5  ft.  In  Argentine  they  have  the  largest 
gauge  in  the  world — viz.,  5  ft.  6  in.  This 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Argentines  pur- 
chased the  railways  and  rolling  stock 
which  were  laid  down  by  the  British  and 
French  during  the  Crimean  War.  The 
gauge  used  was  5  ft.  6  in. 

Q. — Is  the  Euphrates  a  navigable 
river? 

A. — Not  for  commercial  purposes. 
Sailing  craft  manage  to  traverse  it  from 
the  Persian  Gulf  to  Hit,  due  west  of  Bag- 
dad, but  beyond  that  town  even  they  can- 
not go.  Hit  is  about  500  miles  from 
Kurna,  where  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates 
meet  and  flow  to  the  Persian  Gulf  in  one 
stream,  known  as  the  Shat-el-Arab.  The 
Euphrates  rises  near  Erzerum,  and  is 
about  1 ,800  miles  long.  When  the  snows 
melt  in  the  Armenian  mountains  in  March 
and  April,  the  river  overflows  its  banks, 
but,  otherwise,  it  is  a  sluggish  stream. 
In  November,  when  the  water  is  low, 
rocks,  dams,  and  shallows  make  naviga- 
tion exceedingly  difficult 


WORLD  TRADE 


Q. — Has  our  entrance  into  war 
caused  much  upset  to  Ameri- 
can business? 

A. — No.  The  adjustment  of  business 
throughout  the  country  to  war  conditions 
was  effected  with  very  little  trouble. 
R.  G.  Dun  and  Co.  reported  that  dur- 
ing 1917  there  were  fewer  business 
failures  than  in  any  one  of  the  three  years 
previous.  The  liabilities  of  the  failures 
that  year  totaled  $183,441,371,  smaller  than 
the  corresponding  figures  for  any  one  of 
the  last  ten  years. 

Q. — Was  there  a  decline  in  Amer- 
ican foreign  trade  as  the  imme- 
diate result  of  the  submarine 
blockade? 

A. — The  German  submarine  blockade, 
announced  as  beginning  February  I,  1917, 
had  the  following  effect:  Exports  for 
January,  1917,  from  the  United  States, 
$613,000,000.  Exports  for  February,  $466,- 
000,000.  The  decline  in  tonnage  arriving 
in  February  at  the  port  of  New  York  was 
23  per  cent  below  the  arrivals  in  January. 
The  drop  in  tonnage  cleared  was  20  per 
cent. 

Q. — Did  England  levy  heavy  duties 
on  German  goods? 

A. — Great  Britain  made  no  discrimina- 
tion whatever.  All  goods— with  but  few 
exceptions — could  enter  the  country  with- 
out paying  any  customs  duty  at  all.  Du- 
ties were  levied  on  a  few  commodities, 
but  without  the  slightest  reference  to 
their  place  of  origin.  Sugar,  for  instance, 
whether  from  the  West  Indies,  Australia, 
India,  Russia,  France  or  Germany,  had 
to  pay  a  duty  of  from  10  pence  (about 
20  cents)  to  4  shilling  12  pence  (about 
$1.25)  a  hundred  pounds,  according  to  its 
quality,  irrespective  of  where  it  was  pro- 
duced. 

Q. — Did  all  German  goods  entering 
England  have  to  be  labelled 
"Made  in  Germany"? 

A. — It  was  done  under  an  Act  known 
as  the  Merchandise  Marks  Act,  which  was 
passed  in  1887.  At  that  time  the  Con- 
servatives were  in  power,  Lord  Salisbury 
being  Prime  Minister.  The  Act  was 
passed  because  of  the  manner  in  which 
trade  marks  were  falsified,  and  because 


of  the  outcry  against  the  importation  of 
so  many  German  articles  which,  it  was 
said,  were  far  inferior  to  the  British, 
and  caused  unfair  competition. 

Q. — What  was  the  result  of  this 
law? 

A. — It  turned  out  that  this  Act  was 
the  greatest  advertisement  for  German 
goods  imaginable.  When  it  came  into 
force  people  were  amazed  to  find  that 
some  of  the  best  articles  they  purchased 
were  made  in  Germany  instead  of,  as 
they  had  supposed,  in  Great  Britain. 
The  result  was  that  the  label,  "Made_  in 
Germany,"  instead  of  being,  as  was  antici- 
pated, a  brand  of  inferiority,  became 
actually  a  recommendation.  The  German 
manufacturers  and  merchants  were  quick 
to  seize  the  opportunity  and  "Made  in 
Germany"  became  their  slogan  which  they 
sent  around  the  world.  The  Act  never 
was  repealed,  but  has  been  modified  in 
various  ways. 

Q. — Did   America's   foreign   trade 
profit  or  lose  by  the  war? 

A. — The  total  foreign  commerce  of  the 
United  States  for  1917  established  a  rec- 
ord. The  following  are  the  official  fig- 
ures for  the  years  before  and  after  the 
outbreak  of  the  European  war: — 

Exports  and  imports  from  the  United 
States  for  the  calendar  year  1915,  and 
for  a  series  of  calendar  years,  compare 
as  follows : 


Exports. 

1917    $6,226,000,000 

1916    5,480,000,000 

ipiS    3,554,670,847 

1914    2,113,624,050 

1913    2,484,311,176 

1912    2,399,217,993 


1917 
1916 


IQI4 
1913 
1912 


Imports. 
$2,952,000,000 
2,391,716,335 
1,778,596,695 
1,787,276,000 
1,792,183,645 
1,818,073,055 

Excess  of 
exports  over 

imports. 

$3,274,000,000 

3,089,184,506 

1,776,074,152 

324,348,049 

602,127,531 

581,144,938 


Q. — Does  Great  Britain  control  the 
trade  of  Holland? 

A. — She  does  so  in  effect  through  the 
Netherlands  Oversea  Trust.     The  Dutch 


269 


270 


Questions  and  Answers 


were  induced  by  this  means  early  in  the 
war  to  divide  their  exports  equally  be- 
tween Germany  and  the  Allies — that  is  to 
say,  if  they  wished  to  send  a  thousand 
tons  of  potatoes  to  Germany  they  had  to 
send  a  thousand  to  Great  Britain,  de- 
spite the  fact  that  the  Germans  would 
probably  have  been  willing  to  pay  twice 
as  much  for  the  supplies.  Later  the  Allies 
insisted  that  the  Dutch  send  the  British 
share  to  England  in  their  own  vessels. 
The  Germans,  on  the  other  hand,  refused 
to  supply  coal  to  the  Dutch  unless  an 
equivalent  in  foodstuffs  were  sent  across 
to  Germany. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  German  goods 
reached  this  country  after  war 
began  ? 

A. — Yes,  but  the  amount  was  exceed- 
ingly small  compared  with  that  which 
crossed  the  Atlantic  in  ordinary  years. 
For  the  seven  months,  March  to  Sep- 
tember, before  the  war,  in  round  figures 
the  value  of  imports  into  the  States  from 
Germany  and  Austria  was  $120,000,000. 
From  March  to  September,  1915,  the 
value  of  imports  from  these  countries 
dropped  to  $22,000,000.  This  sum  includes 
the  goods  which  were  already  in  neutral 
ports  in  the  way  of  shipment  or  in  transit. 

Q. — Why  did  Great  Britain  allow 
any  goods  through  ? 

A. — As  the  object  of  the  policy  of 
blockade  was  to  injure  the  enemy,  not 
neutrals,  the  Allied  Governments  in  cer- 
tain cases  permitted  the  export  of  goods 
which  had  been  ordered  before  March 
1.  19^5  (when  the  famous  Orders-in- 
Council  were  promulgated),  and  had  been 
either  paid  for  before  that  date  or  or- 
dered on  terms  which  made  the  neutral 
purchaser  liable  to  pay  whether  the  goods 
reached  him  or  not.  It  is  clear  that  in 
these  cases  no  harm  could  be  done  the 
enemy  or  pressure  be  put  upon  him  by  not 
allowing  the  goods  to  pass. 

Q. — Will  there  be  prosperity  or  de- 
pression after  the  war? 

A. — That  is  a  question  no  one  can  an- 
swer. This  struggle  has  shattered  most 
financial  shibboleths,  and  has  touched  the 
industries  and  trade  of  the  world  as  no 
other  conflict  ever  did.  If  precedent  is 
anything  to  go  by,  there  will  be  great 
prosperity.  The  Napoleonic  wars,  the 
Crimean  War,  the  American  Civil  War, 
the  Franco-Prussian  War,  and  the  Boer 
War  all  involved  relatively  great  increase 


in  the  debts  of  the  belligerent  nations, 
and  yet  they  were  all  followed  by  low 
interest  rates,  advancing  security  prices 
and  great  trade  activity  in  the  markets  of 
the  defeated  as  well  as  those  of  the  vic- 
torious countries. 

Q. — How    does    German    trade    in 
general  compare  with  British? 

A. — Forty  years  ago  the  exports  of 
Great  Britain  were  nearly  three  times 
those  of  Germany.  In  1913,  Germany  had 
almost  caught  up.  The  figures  were : — 
Great  Britain,  £525,000,000;  Germany, 
£406,600,000.  Great  Britain's  exports  in 
1912  were  £487,200,000,  actually  less  than 
Germany's  in  1913.  In  1911  England  ex- 
ported goods  to  the  value  of  £454,000,000. 
Germany  in  that  year  exported  £398,000,- 
ooo. 

Q. — When  was  the  Paris  Confer- 
ence held? 

A. — Allied  representatives  met  in  Paris 
in  June,  1916,  to  formulate  economic 
principles  which  should  govern  their  con- 
duct after  the  war  was  over.  The  con- 
ference projected  what  was  practically  an 
economic  boycott  of  the  Central  Powers. 
President  Wilson,  in  his  reply  to  the 
Pope's  peace  note,  definitely  committed 
the  United  States  against  any  such  spe- 
cific principle. 

Q. — What  were  the  specific  propo- 
sitions of  the  Conference? 

A. — So  far  as  trading  with  the  enemy 
after  the  war  is  concerned,  they  were  as 
follows : 

"Whereas  the  war  has  put  an  end  to  all 
the  treaties  of  commerce  between  the 
Allies  and  the  enemy  Powers,  and  where- 
as it  is  of  essential  importance  that  dur- 
ing the  period  of  economic  reconstruction 
which  will  follow  the  cessation  of  hos- 
tilities, the  liberty  of  none  of  the  Allies 
should  be  hampered  by  any  claim  put 
forward  by  the  enemy  Powers  to  most- 
favored  nation  treatment,  the  Allies 
agree  that  the  benefit  of  this  treatment 
shall  not  be  granted  to  those  Powers  dur- 
ing a  number  of  years  to  be  fixed  by  mu- 
tual agreement  among  themselves. 

"During  this  number  of  years  the  Allies 
undertake  to  assure  to  each  other,  as  far 
as  possible,  compensatory  outlets  for 
trade  in  case  consequences  detrimental  to 
their  commerce  result  from  the  applica- 
tion of  the  undertaking  referred  to  in  the 
preceding  paragraph." 


World  Trade 


271 


Q. — How  would  this  hit  the  Centra! 
Powers  ? 

A. — The  Allies  declared  themselves 
agreed  to  conserve  for  the  Allied  coun- 
tries before  all  others  their  natural  re- 
sources during  the  whole  period  of  com- 
mercial, industrial,  agricultural,  and  mari- 
time reconstruction,  and  for  this  purpose 
they  undertake  to  establish  special  ar- 
rangements to  facilitate  the  interchange 
of  these  resources. 

In  order  to  defend  their  commerce, 
their  industry,  their  agriculture,  and 
their  navigation  against  economic  aggres- 
sion, resulting  from  "dumping,"  or  any 
other  mode  of  unfair  competition,  the 
Allies  were  to  fix  by  agreement  a  period 
of  time  during  which  the  commerce  of 
the  enemy  Powers  should  be  submitted  to 
special  treatment,  and  the  goods  origi- 
nating in  their  countries  be  subjected 
either  to  prohibitions  or  to  a  special  re- 
gime of  an  effective  character. 

Q. — Was    it    contemplated    to    do 
more? 

A. — The  Allies  were  to  determine  by 
agreement  through  diplomatic  channels 
the  special  conditions  to  be  imposed  dur- 
ing the  above  mentioned  period  on  the 
ships  of  the  enemy  Powers. 


The  Allies  were  to  devise  measures  to 
be  taken  jointly  or  severally  for  prevent- 
ing enemy  subjects  from  exercising  in 
their  territories  certain  industries  or  pro- 
fessions which  concern  national  defense 
or  economic  independence. 


Q. — Do  economists  approve  of  the 
plan  for  cutting  our  German 
trade? 

A. — No.  Although  at  the  time  the 
Paris  resolutions  were  hailed  with  en- 
thusiasm by  many  who  misjudged  after- 
war  conditions,  it  was  not  long  before 
thoughtful  men  everywhere  began  to  see 
how  utterly  impossible  it  will  be  to  put 
them  into  force.  One  of  the  first  to  raise 
his  voice  against  the  economic  blockade 
was  Yves  Guyot,  most  distinguished  of 
French  economists.  He  was  Minister  of 
Public  Works  for  some  years.  Many  of 
his  works  have  been  translated  into  Eng- 
lish, and  are  regarded  as  text  books.  M. 
Guyot,  speaking  in  London,  said  that  "any 
attempt  to  suppress  free  exchange  of 
goods  between  France  and  Germany 
could  be  advantageous  only  to  smug- 
glers." Dealing  with  the  drastic  measures 
proposed,  he  said  that  "a  treaty  of  peace 
could  not  be  a  treaty  of  war." 


EUROPE'S  FOOD 


Q. — What  rations  are  allowed  to  an 
Englishman? 

A. — A  system  of  rationing  went  into 
effect  in  London  and  the  English  counties 
on  meat,  butter  and  margarine  on  Feb- 
ruary 25,  1918.  The  allowance  for  meat 
is  20  ounces  per  mature  person  per  week. 
Children  over  10  are  entitled  to  only  one- 
half  a  pound  weekly. 

Meat,  butter  and  margarine  may  be 
obtained  on  ration-cards  only.  On  the 
meat  cards  are  four  coupons  for  each. 
Of  these  only  three  may  be  used  in  buy- 
ing butchers'  meats,  such  as  beef,  mutton 
and  pork. 

The  butter  and  margarine  ration  is  four 
ounces  per  person  weekly. 

Q. — Were  meatless  days  ordered  in 
England? 

A. — Not  until  January,  1918,  when 
Lord  Rhondda,  the  Food  Controller, 
issued  an  order  applying  to  all  hotels, 
restaurants,  boarding  houses,  and  public 
places,  to  begin  forthwith.  It  specified 
two  meatless  days  weekly — Tuesdays  and 
Fridays  in  the  London  district,  and 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays  in  other  parts  of 
the  kingdom. 

It  ordered  that  between  the  hours  of 
5  and  10:30  o'clock  in  the  morning  no 
meat,  poultry,  or  game  may  be  consumed 
on  any  day,  and  no  milk  may  be  con- 
sumed as  a  beverage  except  by  children 
under  ten  years  of  age. 

A  guest  must  provide  his  own  sugar 
for  sweetening  beverages  except  that  resi- 
dents of  hotels,  clubs,  and  boarding 
houses  may  be  supplied  with  not  exceed- 
ing six  ounces  of  sugar  weekly  for  this 
purpose,  if  they  do  not  possess  the  ordi- 
nary sugar  rations. 

Q. — Had   England  done  anything 
else  in  food  regulation? 

A. — In  1916  it  was  made  illegal  for 
bread  to  be  sold  unless  it  were  at  least 
twelve  hours  old,  and  in  the  shape  of  a 
one-piece  oven  bottom  loaf,  or  a  tin  loaf 
or  a  roll,  no  currant,  sultana,  or  milk 
bread  to  be  sold,  and  no  sugar  to  be  used 
in  making  bread.  Bakers  were  also  pro- 
hibited from  exchanging  new  bread  for 
old.  All  bread  was  to  be  sold  by  weight, 
and  the  loaves  had  to  weigh  under  i 
pound  or  an  even  number  of  pounds,  and 


loaves  not  weighing  the  prescribed 
amount  were  to  be  cut  up  and  sold  by 
weight.  Rolls  had  to  weigh  2  ounces. 

Q. — What  was  the  price  for  pota- 
toes fixed  in  Great  Britain? 

A. — The  fixing  of  prices  created  a  good 
deal  of  criticism  and  protest  in  England 
and  ultimately  it  was  decided  that  the 
prices  named  should  not  be  regarded  as 
contract  prices,  but  as  minimum  prices, 
guaranteed  by  the  Government  for  pota- 
toes of  the  first  quality.  Prices  were  as 
follow : 

£5  155.  per  ton  for  delivery  from  De- 
cember 15  to  January  31,  1917. 

£6  per  ton  for  delivery  in  February  and 
March,  1917. 

£6  IDS.  per  ton  for  delivery  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  season,  for  quantities  of 
not  less  than  six  tons,  F.O.B.  or  F.O.R. 

Q. — Were  meat  prices  high  in  Eng- 
land in  1918? 

A. — It  was  reported  in  March  that  the 
prices  ranged  from  about  43  cents  a 
pound  for  the  best  cuts  to  about  25  cents 
a  pound  for  inferior  cuts.  s 

Q. — Did  the  British  nation's  whole 
food  cost  increase  very  heav- 
ily? 

A. — England's  imports  of  foodstuffs  in 
the  whole  of  1917  increased  $198,500,000 
in  cost  over  the  preceding  year,  the  in- 
crease being  very  largely  due  to  higher 
prices. 

Q. — Is  it  possible  to  purchase  sugar 
in  England  without  buying 
other  provisions  at  the  same 
time? 

A. — It  is  illegal  for  anybody  to  make 
conditional  food-sales  in  Great  Britain. 
Food  Order,  1917,  provides  that,  except 
under  authority  of  the  Food  Controller, 
no  person  may  impose  any  condition, 
when  selling  any  article  of  food,  to  neces- 
sitate the  purchase  of  any  other  article. 
Grocers  may  not  sell  any  article  of  food 
in  excess  of  the  customer's  ordinary  re- 
quirements. 


272 


Europe's  Food 


273 


Q. — Whence   does    England   draw 
most  of  her  supplies  in  peace? 

A. — She  obtained  the  following  sup- 
plies of  wheat  in  1913,  1914  and  1915  in 
cwts. : — 


Place.          1913. 
U.  S.  A.  22,000,000 
A  r  g  e  n- 

tina  ..  i6jOOo,ooo 
India  ...  21,500,000 
Canada  19,000,000 
Russia  .  10,700,000 
A'stralia  12,000,000 
Roumania  896,000 
Chile  ..  511,000 


1914.  1915. 

34,200,000  41,600,000 

6,500,000  12,200,000 

10,700,000  13,000,000 

31,500,000  19,700,000 

7,200,000  800,000 

12,100,000  200,000 

343,000          

51,000          


Total  102,607,000  102,594,000    88,400,000 

This  would  seem  to  suggest  that  dur- 
ing 1915  England  must  have  drawn  on 
her  stores  for  at  least  14,000,000  cwts., 
and,  therefore,  had  to  enter  1916  with  a 
more  slender  margin  between  importation 
and  consumption  than  is  customary. 

Q. — What  foods  does  England  im- 
port and  raise? 

A. — It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  answer 
that  question  as  there  are  so  many  items, 
and  given  in  such  different  measures, 
while  no  estimate  even  can  be  made  as 
to  the  local  production  of  many  articles 
of  food.  The  main  staples  can,  however, 
be  given : — 

Produced 
in  U.  K.  Imported. 
Tons.          Tons. 
Wheat  and  flour..     1,600,000        6,100,000 

Butter   84,000  200,000 

Potatoes   5,500,000          200,000 

Cheese  140,000  120,000 

Margarine 70,000 

Sugar 1,800,000 

Maize    2,200,000 

Rice 300,000 

Rabbits   ?  20,000 

Beef 800,000  480,000 

Mutton    200,000          250,000 

Bacon  and  hams . .       390,000  280,000 

Eggs    ?      2,225,000,000 

eggs  (worth 
£7,300,000). 

The  total  value  of  food  imports  in  1913 
was  $1,381,000,000. 

Q. — Just  what  proportion  of  wheat 
is  imported? 

A. — The  Prime  Minister  told  the  House 
of  Commons  in  1916  that  between  70  and 


80  per  cent  of  the  staple  cereal  supply 
was  imported  every  year.  He  said  then 
that  the  existing  food  stocks  were  alarm- 
ingly low,  and  urged  that  every  effort 
should  be  made  to  increase  that  year's 
harvest  and  the  next.  If  the  area  under 
cultivation  was  not  increased  at  once,  he 
said,  the  nation  might  have  to  choose  be- 
tween diminishing  its  military  efforts  and 
underfeeding  its  population. 

Q. — Were  there  heavy  imports  of 
wheat  into  England  during 
1916? 

A. — The  imports  for  what  is  called  the 
harvest  year  (September  I,  1915,  to 
August  31,  1916)  were  practically  the 
same  as  for  the  previous  one,  1914-15, 
viz.,  106,000,000  cwts.,  as  compared  with 
110,000,000  cwts.  for  1913-14,  but  the 
home  production  was  41,500,000  cwts.,  as 
against  31,300,000  in  1913-14,  and  36,700,- 
ooo  cwts.  in  1914-15.  During  the  last  five 
months  of  1916  viz.,  from  June  I7th  to 
December  i6th,  the  imports  were  as  fol- 
low: 

June  17-      June  17-      June  17- 
Dec.  16,      Dec.  16,     Dec.  16. 

1916.  1915.  1914. 

Cwts.  Cwts.          Cwts. 

Imports    49,271,200    50,897,000    64,502,300 
Home 
grown   18,416,500     16,059,600     17,876,300 

Total     67,687,700    66,956,600    82,378,600 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  im- 
ports during  the  twelve  months  of  1916 
were  a  good  deal  behind  those  of  1914. 


Q. — Is  it  true  that  supplies — nota- 
bly sugar — shipped  to  the  Al- 
lies have  been  resold  to  Amer- 
icans? 

A. — Food  shipped  to  the  Allies  is,  from 
the  moment  of  its  arrival,  under  super- 
vision or  control  of  Government  agencies. 

In  Italy  such  an  agency  exists  since 
1915,  under  control  of  a  "Commissary 
General  of  Supplies."  Especially  drastic 
regulations  govern  the  use,  import  and 
export  of  sugar. 

In  France,  a  special  "Ministry  of  Pro- 
visioning and  Maritime  Transports"  takes 
care  of  all  imports  and  exports. 

In  England  the  "Ministry  of  Food"  and 
the  "Royal  Wheat  Commission"  look 
after  such  matters.  To  re-sell  supplies 
exported  from  America  to  the  Allies  is, 
therefore,  next  to  impossible. 


274 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — Has  the  amount  as  well  as  the 
value  of  meat  imports  into 
Great  Britain  greatly  increased 
since  war  began? 

A. — During  1916,  533,811  tons  of  frozen 
and  chilled  meat  were  imported  into  the 
United  Kingdom,  as  against  662,925  tons 
in  1915,  and  694,427  tons  in  1914.  It  is 
probable  that  the  amount  consumed  in 
England  was  nearly  the  same  in  1916  as 
it  was  in  1914,  because  large  quantities 
were  diverted  to  the  British  armies  on 
the  Continent,  and  do  not  appear  in  the 
statistics.  The  total  amount  of  meat  con- 
sumed in  1916,  including  the  home-killed 
supplies,  was  1,677,548  tons.  The  value 
of  meat  imported  in  1914  was  £30,059,527 ; 
in  1915,  £39,576,930;  and  in  1916,  £36,484,- 
143- 

Q. — What  sheep,  pigs,  and  cattle 
are  in  the  United  Kingdom? 

A. — In  1914  there  were  12,184,505  head 
of  cattle;  27,960,000  sheep;  3,952,600  pigs. 
Sheep  had  increased  in  number  by  200,000 
in  1915,  but  cattle  and  pigs  had  decreased 
to  12,000,000  and  3,860,000  respectively. 
Of  the  pigs  2,400,000  were  in  England 
and  Wales,  100,000  in  Scotland,  and 
1,300,000  in  Ireland.  Ireland  had  4,850,- 
ooo  of  the  cattle  and  England  5,300,000. 
There  were  1,850,000  horses  in  1914  and 
150,000  fewer  in  1915. 

Q.— Has  the  British  War  Office 
called  agricultural  laborers  un- 
der the  Compulsory  Service 
Bill? 

A. — Apparently  it  called  up  30,000  men 
before  1917.  Lord  Derby,  the  Minister  of 
War,  says  that  about  180,000  agriculturists 
have  joined  the  forces  since  the  beginning 
of  the  war,  and  that  in  1918,  30,000 
men  of  military  age  were  employed 
on  or  about  the  farms  of  England  and 
Wales.  From  that  number  the  War  Office 
had  been  authorized  to  take  60,000  men 
who  had  been  refused  exemption  by  the 
tribunals.  The  War  Cabinet,  however,  re- 
duced this  number  to  30,000,  and  pre- 
sumably no  more  will  be  taken  off  the 
land.  Obviously  it  will  be  difficult  for 
the  farmers  of  Great  Britain  to  produce 
increased  crops  when  almost  half  their 
laborers  have  gone  to  France. 

Q. — Are  children  much  used  in 
England  in  agricultural  work? 

A. — There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  pro- 
test concerning  the  way  in  which  children 


have  been  working  in  the  fields,  thus  los- 
ing many  months  of  their  school  educa- 
tion at  a  time  when  it  was  most  neces- 
sary to  them.  The  need  for  labor,  how- 
ever, induced  educational  authorities  to 
release  large  numbers  of  children  from 
compulsory  attendance  at  school.  The 
Kent  Educational  Committee,  for  in- 
stance, in  January,  1917,  released  638 
children  for  agricultural  work,  and  simi- 
lar action  has  been  taken  all  over  the 
country. 

Q.— Could  England,  Scotland  and 
Ireland  together  produce 
enough  to  feed  the  United 
Kingdom? 

A. — Probably  they  could,  but  it  would 
be  at  the  expense  of  some  of  their  great 
industries.  Millions  now  engaged  in 
manufacturing  work  would  have  to  go 
on  the  land.  Great  estates  would  have 
to  be  cut  up  and  up-to-date  methods 
would  have  to  be  employed.  At  present 
the  United  Kingdom  produces  enough 
wheat  to  last  its  people  for  three,  pos- 
sibly four,  months.  To  provide  a  full 
wheat  supply  6,000,000  acres  would  have 
to  be  cultivated  instead  of  1,850,000,  acres 
as  before  the  war ;  or  the  yield  per  acre 
would  have  to  be  increased  as  it  was  in 
Germany.  Sugar  beet  factories  would 
have  to  be  erected  and  great  areas  would 
have  to  be  planted  with  this  root  crop. 
The  dairying  industry  would  have  to  be 
immensely  developed ;  fisheries,  too ;  and 
the  working  classes  would  have  to  revert 
to  their  one  meat-meal  a  week,  to  which 
they  were  accustomed  before  cold  stor- 
age brought  lamb,  mutton  and  beef 
within  their  reach.  Thus,  to  become  self- 
supporting,  Great  Britain  would  have  to 
turn  herself  into  an  agricultural  country 
and  cease  to  be  a  great  industrial  center 
of  the  world. 

Q. — Does  England  get  much  food 
from  Holland  and  Scandinavia? 

A. — The  value  of  the  imports  from 
Holland  before  the  war  was  about  £19,- 
000,000,  from  Denmark  about  £20,000,000, 
from  Norway  about  £7,000,000,  and  from 
Sweden  about  £12,000.000  per  annum,  a 
total  of  £58,000,000  every  year.  Practic- 
ally the  whole  of  the  imports  from  Hol- 
land were  foodstuffs :  Peas,  rice,  eggs, 
fish,  cheese,  butter  (£1,000,000),  mar- 
garine (£2,000,000),  sugar  (£2,000,000), 
hides,  poultry,  condensed  milk.  From 
Denmark  too,  little  but  food  was  im- 
ported, butter  accounting  for  more  than 
half  the  total,  the  rest  being  made  up  of 
eggs,  bacon  and  other  dairy  produce. 


Europe's  Food 


275 


From  Norway  the  largest  food  export 
was  fish  (£938,000  in  1914)  ;  butter,  ice, 
fish-oil  together  amounted  to  barely 
£500,000.  The  chief  items  were  paper, 
wood-pulp,  and  timber.  From  Sweden 
not  only  about  £2,000,000  worth  of  butter, 
eggs,  and  the  Hke  were  obtained,  but  over 
£1,000,000  of  iron  and  iron  ore  was  sent 
from  Sweden  to  Great  Britain.  Wood- 
pulp,  paper  and  timber  amounted  to  more 
than  £8,000,000. 

Q. — Does    Great    Britain    produce 
most  of  the  pork  she  requires? 

A. — No.  She  relies  heavily  upon  Den- 
mark, Holland  and  the  United  States  for 
supplies  of  bacon,  pork  and  ham.  The 
President  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture 
has,  however,  urged  the  breeding  of  large 
numbers  of  pigs,  and  has  suggested  the 
starting  of  "Pig  Clubs"  in  every  district. 
The  object  of  these  clubs  is  to  get  in 
touch  with  those  who  are  willing  to  keep 
a  pig,  and  to  find  put  to  what  extent  they 
need  financial  assistance  in  the  purchase 
of  the  animal.  This  method  had  already 
been  in  good  working  order  for  some 
time  in  Germany.  Pigs,  there,  are  always 
very  numerous,  and  form  one  of  the 
greatest  meat  supplies  of  the  country. 
Some  time  ago,  it  is  reported,  everyone 
able  to  do  so  was  required  to  keep  a  pig. 
The  piglet  was  supplied  by  the  authorities, 
and  when  it  had  grown  up,  was  taken 
away,  and  replaced  by  another  small  pig- 
let. In  this  way,  the  Germans  have 
greatly  increased  the  number  of  pigs 
available  for  market  throughout  the 
whole  empire. 

Q. — Why  do  European  nations  not 
use  more  corn? 

A. — They  are  not  accustomed  to 
it.  What  they  call  "corn"  is  wheat  and 
rye.  Their  name  for  our  corn  is  "maize," 
and  that,  by  the  way,  is  the  correct  name. 
In  reading  European  articles,  it  is  well  to 
remember  that  the  word  "corn"  means 
the  real  cereals  in  Europe.  Many  ^  a 
writer  on  Europe  has  made  queer  mis- 
takes by  not  being  aware  of  this. 

Q. — Could  we  not  induce  them  to 
use  our  corn? 

A. — In  1918  the  Europeans  decided  to 
do  so.  Their  food  shortage  was  such 
that  the  Allies  consented  to  much  greater 
use  of  corn  than  had  been  anticipated. 
The  Allied  countries  normally  raise  121,- 
109,000  bushels  of  corn  and  import  from 
the  United  States  10,811,000  bushels,  and 


135,670,000  from  other  sources,  their  total 
consumption  in  pre-war  times  being  266,- 
596,000  bushels. 

Of  a  crop  of  3,124,000,000  bushels  the 
United  States  expected  to  have  a  surplus 
of  about  370,000,000  bushels,  and  Canada 
a  62,000,000  bushel  surplus. 


Q. — How  many  nations  in  Europe 
are  self-supporting? 

A. — Every  European  nation  relies  to 
some  extent  upon  imports,  and  if  these 
were  suddenly  to  stop,  it  would  entail 
great  hardships  on  certain  countries, 
while  some  would  suffer  heavily.  The 
producing  countries  could  exist  after  a 
fashion,  but  in  others  the  people  would 
starve  quickly.  The  two  countries  most 
dependent  on  supplies  from  beyond  their 
borders  are  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Italy.  Great  Britain  largely  lives  on  im- 
ported foodstuffs,  and  gets  copper,  oil, 
cotton,  wool  and  other  essential  raw  ma- 
terial from  overseas.  Italy  has  to  rely 
entirely  on  other  countries  for  coal,  and 
imports  immense  quantities  of  wheat, 
meat  and  other  foodstuffs.  France  could 
/exist  without  imports  even  more  easily 
than  Germany  has  done.  Countries  like 
Denmark,  Holland,  Norway  and  Sweden, 
although  they  import  foodstuffs,  probably 
could  make  shift  to  support  themselves. 
Great  poverty  would  result,  however,  if 
the  condition  should  last  long. 

Almost  all  these  countries  lack  coal. 
Probably  the  most  self-supporting  coun- 
tries in  Europe  are  Spain,  Austria-Hun- 
gary, Bulgaria,  Serbia,  Turkey  and  Rus- 
sia. Switzerland  lives  largely  on  import- 
ed cereals,  and  has  to  get  coal  and  other 
minerals  from  abroad. 

Q. — Has  the  productivity  of  France 
decreased  since  the  war  ? 

A. — There  has  been  a  notable  decrease. 
Edmond  Thery  made  a  special  study  of 
French  agriculture,  and  published  the  fol- 
lowing, remarkable  tables.  The  first  of 
the  tables  deals  with  cereals,  and  is  as 
follows  (the  figures  representing  thou- 
sands of  quintals  and  covering  the  total 
production  of  France)  : — 

Years 

Mean  Wheat.  Rye.  Barley.  Oats. 

1905-1914  87,970  12,869  9,862  48,095 

1913  86,919  12,715  10,438  51,826 

1914 76,936  ii,i47  9,753  46,206 

1915   60,630  8,420  6,921  34,626 

1916  58,411  9,i  16  8,579  41,280 

The  second  table  gives  similar  figures 


Questions  and  Answers 


for  potatoes,  wine,  sugar,  and  is  as  fol- 
lows : — 

Potatoes.    Wine.     Sugar. 
Millions  Millions  Millions 

of        of  Hecto-    of 
Years.             Quintals,     litres.    Kilos. 
Mean 
1905-1914    134  53  705 

1913  136  44  878 

1914  120  56  717 

IQI5   94  18  303 

1916  88  33  136 

Thery  considers  the  state  of  affairs  will 
be  worse  after  the  war,  because  of  the 
anticipated  competition  of  manufacturers 
and  traders  for  labor. 

Q. — Have    the    French    restricted 
food  consumption? 

A. — Yes.  M.  Heriot,  the  wonderful 
organizer  of  Lyons,  who  was  made  Food 
Controller  in  France,  issued  a  decree  that 
food  consumption  must  be  reduced.  Ac- 
cording to  this  decree  no  person  in  any 
public  feeding  place  could  be  served  with 
more  than  two  dishes,  only  one  of  which 
could  be  meat.  Apart  from  these  two 
dishes  the  consumer  was  entitled  to  soup 
or  hors  d'aeuvres,  and  cheese  or  dessert, 
but  not  both.  Vegetables,  whether  cooked 
or  raw,  were  to  be  counted  as  separate 
dishes  if  served  separately.  In  order  to 
reduce  the  consumption  of  flour,  milk, 
eggs  and  sugar,  entremets  were  sup- 
pressed. All  restaurant  menus  had  to  be 
radically  simplified,  and  were  subject  to 
official  inspection  and  control.  They 
could  not  include  more  than  two  soups 
and  nine  dishes,  which  were  as  follow : 
One  dish  of  eggs  of  various  sorts,  two 
varieties  of  fish,  three  varieties  of  vege- 
tables. 

Q. — Is  less  French  land  cultivated 
now  than  before  the  war? 

A. — Under  wheat  in  the  early  part  of 

1917  there    were    4,207,530    hectares,    as 
against  5,205,620  in  1916^  which  was  less 
than   normal.     Under   millet  there   were 
84,485    hectares,    as    against    101,205    in 
1916;    under    rye    809,735    hectares,    as 
against  925,600  in   1916,   and  under  oats 
2,605,070  hectares,  as  against  3,044,760  in 
1916.     Only  in  barley  was  there  a  slight 
increase,  596,705  hectares  in  1917  to  586,- 
285  in  1916.     The  average  yield  per  hec- 
tare was  much  less. 

Q. — Does  Chile  export  wheat? 

A. — Chile  once  supplied  Argentine  and 
California  with  wheat,  but  after  these 
countries  became  producers  themselves 


the  Chilean  output  declined.  The  value 
of  the  wheat  exported  the  year  before 
the  war  was  about  $5,000,000.  Most  of 
it  went  to  Great  Britain. 

Q. — When     were     the     European 
sugar  bounties  abolished? 

A.— They  were  abolished  by  the  Con- 
vention of  Brussels  in  1902.  An  object 
of  this  Convention  was  to  put  an  end  to 
the  bounty  war  for  the  British  market, 
which  the  Continental  Powers  had  been 
waging  among  themselves.  In  England 
it  was  hoped  that  the  sugar  cane  growers 
of  the  West  Indies  would  benefit.  The 
Continental  Powers  agreed  to  the  aboli~ 
tion  of  the  bounties  only  on  the  distinct 
understanding  that  special  tariffs  equal 
to  the  bounty  should  be  levied  on  sugar 
produced  in  countries  not  signatories  to 
the  Convention.  Great  Britain,  however, 
in  1908,  when  the  treaty  came  up  for 
renewal,  declared  that  she  would  sign 
only  if  she  were  allowed  to  import  boun- 
ty-fed sugar  on  the  same  terms  as  she 
imported  sugar  not  bounty-fed.  The 
Continental  Powers  strongly  protested, 
but  only  by  being  relieved  from  the  un- 
dertaking to  penalize  bounty-fed  sugar 
would  Great  Britain  re-sign  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Q. — Did  the  price  of  sugar  go  up 
in  England  in  consequence? 

A. — In  1902  the  price  of  sugar  f.o.b. 
Hamburg  was  6s.  7l/-d.  per  cwt. ;  next 
year  it  went  up  to  8s.  3^d.,  and  in  1908 
it  was  los.  Sj^d.  In  this  connection  it  is 
worth  quoting  what  Mr.  Chamberlain  said 
on  the  question  of  sugar,  before  he  be- 
came a  protectionist: — 

"The  policy  which  this  country  has 
been  applying  for  many  years  is  to  pre- 
fer the  large  consuming  interests  of  the 
whole  community  to  the  small  producing 
interest  of  any  single  class.  ...  It  is  to 
the  interest  of  the  sugar  consuming  pub- 
lic ^ to  have  raw  and  refined  sugar  cheap; 
it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  English  sugar 
refineries  to  have  raw  sugar  cheap  and 
refined  sugar  dear,  and  it  is  to  the  interest 
of  the  West  India  sugar  growers  to  have 
raw  sugar  dear." 

Q. — Did  Germany  pay  larger  boun- 
ties than  any  other  country? 

A. — The  French  bounties  were  the 
highest  of  all,  averaging  45.  6d.  per  cwt. 
Then  came  the  Russian  with  35.;  then 
the  German  with  is.  6d. ;  and  then  the 
Austrian  with  is.  3d. 


Europe's  Food 


277 


Q. — Give  particulars  as  to  where 
sugar  imported  into  Great 
Britain  before  the  war  came 
from. 

A. — The  cane  sugar  was  all  imported 
raw.  The  following  figures  were  for 
1910: — 

Raw   Cane   Sugar. 

Tons. 

Java 1 18,304 

Cuba 96,332 

Peru  46,206 

Brazil   51,469 

Mauritius 41,739 

West  Indies  78,737 

Other  countries 120,504 


Total    553,291 

Raw  Beet  Sugar. 

Tons. 

Russia    93 

Germany   229,970 

Holland  20,294 

Belgium 10,996 

France  436 

Austria 57,9i8 


Total 319,707 

Great  Britain,  however,  got  most  of 
her  sugar  ready  refined,  and  practically 
all  of  this  was  made  from  beet.  The 
imports  were  as  follow : — 

Tons. 

Russia    2,289 

Germany  325,792 

Holland  118,161 

Belgium  49,46o 

France  60,987 

Austria 199,466 

Other  countries 80,707 


Total    836,862 

The  value  of  the  raw  cane  sugar  was 
£6,689,345 ;  of  the  raw  beet  sugar,  £3,728,- 
931 ;  and  of  the  refined  sugar,  £13,161,023, 
in  the  two  years  1909  and  1910. 

Q. — Was  all  this  sugar  consumed 
in  the  United  Kingdom? 

A. — Great  Britain  exported  in  1910 
31,416  tons  of  refined  sugar,  and  con- 
sumed 1,728,730,  of  which  1,166,569  tons 
were  beet  sugar  and  562,161  tons  cane 
sugar.  The  year  1910  is  hardly  a  truly 
representative  one,  as  there  was  a  bad 
drought  in  Europe,  and  sugar  was  scarce. 
In  1909  1,467,764  tons  of  beet  sugar  were 
consumed  in  the  United  Kingdom,  and 
292,393  tons  of  cane  sugar. 


Q. — What  sugar  was  imported  into 
the  United  Kingdom  before 
war? 

A. — 27,900,000  cwts.  in  1910,  30,300,000 
cwts.  in  1911,  26,600,000  cwts.  in  1912, 
and  31,100,000  cwts.  in  1913.  Just  over 
half  of  the  annual  import  came  from 
Germany  and  Austria.  Beet  sugar  was 
also  imported  from  Holland  and  Russia. 
Cane  sugar  was  obtained  from  the  West 
Indies  and  India.  It  is  interesting  to 
note,  though,  that,  although  the  British 
West  Indies  are  regarded  as  mainly 
sugar-growing  countries,  the  value  of 
their  cocoa  and  fruit  exports  is  greater 
than  that  of  their  sugar  nowadays. 

Q. — Is  Canada  asking  British  sol- 
diers to  go  there  when  war  is 
over? 

A. — The  Canadian  Commissioner  of 
Immigration  visited  England,  and  on  his 
return  to  Canada  announced  that  he  an- 
ticipated a  tremendous  immigration  of 
Imperial  ex-service  men. 

Q. — What  are  the  Metropolitan 
Public  Kitchens  of  England? 

A. — The  first  was  opened  by  Queen 
Mary  in  May,  1917.  It  can  serve  10,000 
meals  daily.  The  menu  on  the  opening 
day  was:  Scotch  broth,  2d.  and  id.;  roast 
beef  or  mutton,  4d. ;  fruit  mould,  rice  or 
date  pudding,  i^d. ;  maize  scones,  i^d. ; 
greens,  id.;  no  potatoes,  tea  or  coffee. 
(The  English  penny  is  about  2  cents.) 

Q. — Did  the  Chicago  beef  packers 
protest  against  British  confis- 
cations ? 

A. — They  objected  to  the  seizure  in  the 
first  place,  and  to  the  long  delay  of  the 
British  Prize  Courts  in  the  second.  Meat 
to  the  value  of  $15,000,000  was  held  up 
on  ships  going  from  American  to  neutral 
ports,  and  in  some  cases  nearly  a  year 
elapsed  before  the  Prize  Courts  gave 
their  decisions.  In  giving  his  judgment 
about  some  cargoes  of  meat  destined  for 
Denmark,  Sir  Samuel  Evans  said  that  the 
meat  was  obviously  intended  for  German 
consumption. 

Q. — What  did  the  Americans  con- 
tend? 

A. — The  American  packers  contended 
that  no  proof  whatever  was  produced  that 
this  was  so,  and  quoted  Mr.  Asquith's  ex- 
planation that  the  increase  of  coal  exports 
from  Great  Britain  to  Scandinavian  coun- 


278 


Questions  and  Answers 


tries  "was  not  so  much  due,  and  indeed 
was  not  due  at  all,  to  their  being  ulti- 
mately destined  for  Germany,  as  the  fact 
was  that  these  countries  were  deprived 
for  the  time  being  of  the  supplies  that 
they  have  been  accustomed  to  receive 
from  the  enemy  countries." 

Q. — What  have  European  countries 
done  about  the  use  of  alcohol? 

A. — France  and  Italy  abolished  the  fa- 
mous and  deadly  drink  known  as  absinthe. 
Russia  prohibited  the  noted  distilled 
brandy-like  drink  known  as  vodka. 
Great  Britain  greatly  limited  brewing. 

Q. — Was  drunkenness  in  England 
really  great? 

A. — The  figures  of  convictions  for 
drunkenness  in  the  sixteen  English  cities 
which  have  a  population  of  over  200,000 
show  a  notable  decrease  since  the  war. 
In  the  year  1913  the  conviction  in  these 
sixteen  large  towns  were  .107,316.  In 

1915  the  convictions  were  80,091,  and  in 

1916  they   were  46,638.     In   London   the 
drop   has  been    from   65,488   in    1913,   to 
29,453   in    1916.     In   Liverpool   the   con- 
victions in  1913  were  14,894,  and  in  1916 
only  5,926.     Of  course  millions^  of  men 
have  gone  into  the  army,  but  this  is  to  a 
great  extent  balanced  by  the  fact  that  the 
working  classes  have  been  fully  employed 
at  high   wages,   which   fact,   in   ordinary 
circumstances,    would    tend    to    increase 
drunkenness;   so  that  the   decrease   may 
reasonably   be    credited    to    the    way    in 
which  the  sale  and  consumption  of  liquor 
have  been  regulated. 

Q. — Was  the  decrease  due  mostly 
to  restrictions  on  liquor? 

A.— Notably.  The  Central  Control 
Board  states  that  during  the  five  years 
1909-13,  there  was  a  steady  rise  in  the 
number  of  convictions  for  drunkenness. 
A  rapid  decline  set  in  immediately  after 
the  orders  of  the  Board  came  into  op- 
eration. In  December,  1913,  the  total  con- 
victions in  the  London  areas  numbered 
5,701 ;  in  December,  1914,  they  were 
5,295;  in  December,  1915,  they  were  3,105. 
In  February,  1916,  they  had  fallen  to 
2,506.  From  statistics  gathered  by  the 
Board  it  would  seem  that  the  reduction 
of  drunkenness  throughout  England  was 
from  40  to  50  per  cent.  Results  in  Scot- 
land had  not  been  so  satisfactory.  The 
Board  was  taking  special  steps  to  deal 


with  the  increase  of  drunkenness  among 
women,  especially  those  in  receipt  of 
separation  allowances. 

Q. — Was  the  English  order  for  re- 
strictions of  beer  intended  for 
temperance? 

A. — Lord  Devonport  in  explaining  it 
specifically  stated  that  the  object  was  to 
increase  the  amount  of  certain  commodi- 
ties available  for  food,  and  to  economize 
in  tonnage,  transport,  fuel  and  labor. 
During  the  last  few  years,  owing  to  vari- 
ous restrictions,  the  consumption  of  beer, 
wines,  and  spirits  had  been  falling  rapidly 
in  the  United  Kingdom,  but  the  consump- 
tion of  other  beverages  showed  a  corre- 
sponding increase.  The  Board  of  Trade 
returns  give  the  imports  of  tea,  coffee  and 
cocoa,  as  follow : — 

Tea.  Coffee.  Cocoa  (raw) 

Ibs.  cwts.          Ibs. 

1913   ••   365,000,000  847,000      78,000,000 

1916  ..   377,000,000  1,647,000    196,000,000 

The  imports  of  tea  in  1915  reached  an 
even  higher  figure,  the  amount  being  431,- 
000,000  pounds.  That  is  to  say,  that  in 
1916  room  had  to  be  found  in  ships  for 
2,000,000  cwts.  more  tea,  coffee  and  cocoa 
than  in  the  year  before  the  war. 

Q. — Did  restrictions  on  beer  in 
England  save  much  barley? 

A. — According  to  Lord  Devonport  the 
regulations,  which  reduced  the  output  of 
beer  to  50  per  cent  of  the  pre-war  total, 
saved  286,000  tons  of  barley,  36,000  tons 
of  sugar,  and  16,500  tons  of  grits.  It  was 
really,  he  said,  a  question  of  bread  versus 
beer.  The  regulation  actually  provided 
for  the  malting  of  70  per  cent  only  of 
the  output  of  beer  for  the  financial  year 
ending  on  March  31,  1917,  which  is 
equivalent  to  a  reduction  of  50  per  cent 
on  the  pre-war  production.  Before  the 
war  the  output  was  36,000,000  standard 
barrels;  for  1917  it  was  expected  to  be 
18,200,000  only. 

Q. — Has  Congress  restricted  the 
manufacture  of  whiskey? 

A. — Yes.  Under  the  provisions  of  the 
Food  Control  Act  passed  in  August,  1917, 
the  manufacture  of  whiskey  was  pro- 
scribed for  an  indefinite  period  begin- 
ning September  7,  1917.  This  provision 
is  a  grain-saving  measure  and  40,000,000 
bushels  of  grain  a  year  is  the  estimated 
saving. 


AMERICA'S  FOOD 


Q. — Did  the  Food  Board  under 
Hoover  have  power  to  fix  retail 
prices  ? 

A. — No.  Congress  declined  to  give 
such  powers,  and  it  is  probably  correct 
to  say  that  the  Administration  did  not 
strongly  desire  them,  because  of  com- 
plications and  opposition  that  could  be 
foreseen  readily  enough. 

Q. — How,  then,  did  the  Govern- 
ment succeed  in  regulating  re- 
tail dealers? 

A. — It  did  not  "succeed,"  if  by  "suc- 
ceed" you  mean  in  keeping  retail  prices 
down  to  prescribed  levels.  It  did,  how- 
ever, succeed  in  a  very  large  sense,  for 
it  established  not  only  a  strong  and  in- 
telligent public  opinion  but  also  a  general 
clear  perception  among  the  retail  mer- 
chants of  the  whole  country  that  they 
must  exercise  discretion  and  moderation. 

Q. — Did  the  Food  Board  exercise 
only  moral  influence? 

A.— Technically  and  legally  speaking, 
yes.  But  in  actuality  Hoover's  machinery 
had  a  very  real  and  very  powerful  wea- 
pon to  compel  observance  of  rules  that 
had  no  statute  law  behind  them.  This 
weapon  lay  in  the  legal  control  which 
Congress  had  given  to  the  Food  Board 
over  the  wholesale  system  of  food  sup- 
plies. Under  a  licensing  system  for 
wholesalers,  the  Food  Board  was  able,  in 
actual  practice,  to  divert  supplies  from 
retail  dealers  who  transgressed  the  rules. 

Q. — How  many  European  soldiers 
could  we  feed? 

A. — The  Food  Administration  an- 
nounced in  March,  1918,  that  food  suf- 
ficient to  furnish  a  balanced  ration  to  an 
average  of  more  than  16,000,000  men 
yearly  was  shipped  from  the  United 
States  from  the  beginning  of  the  war  to 
January  I,  1918,  to  Great  Britain,  France, 
Italy,  and  Russia.  In  addition,  there  was 
a  surplus  of  some  625,000  tons  of  protein 
and  268,000  tons  of  fats. 

Q. — How  was  this  apportioned? 

A. — Russia  received  less  than  i  per 
cent  of  the  total,  or  only  enough  to  feed 
about  10,000  men  a  year.  Great  Britain 


took  more  than  half  of  the  entire  total 
or  enough  to  feed  about  8,000,000  men. 
France  was  next,  with  enough  for  4,200,- 
ooo  men,  and  Italy  sufficient  for  more 
than  2,000,000  men.  The  three  together 
received  an  excess  of  protein  capable  of 
supplying  this  portion  of  the  diet  to 
some  20,000,000  additional  men. 

Q. — Did  we  ship  much  food  abroad 
in  February,  1918? 

A. — The  exports  of  grains  and  cereals, 
including  flour,  to  the  Allied  nations  and 
for  Belgium  relief  work  totaled  553,425 
tons  for  the  month  of  February,  1918. 

A  tabulation  of  the  exports  of  grains 
and  cereals  by  weeks  was : 

Tons. 

Feb.  i  to  7 84,658 

Feb.  8  to  14 150,095 

Feb.  15  to  21 143,829 

Feb.  22  to  28 174,847 

Total  553,429 

Q. — Did  our  total  food  exports  rise 
in  1917? 

A. — The  Bureau  of  Domestic  and  For- 
eign Commerce  reported  early  in  1918 
that  during  1917  dairy  and  meat  product 
exports  had  jumped  to  new  high  figures 
but  cereal  exports  had  declined.  The  ex- 
ports of  meat,  dairy  products  and  food 
animals  in  1917  exceeded  $400,000,000, 
against  less  than  $150,000,000  in  the  year 
before  the  war,  and  against  $255,000,000 
in  the  high  record  year  1916.  Part  of 
this  increased  value  is  due,  of  course,  to 
the  vastly  higher  prices ;  but  the  actual 
quantities  have  increased  enormously. 
The  exports  of  wheat  for  1917  were  106,- 
202,318  bushels,  for  which  the  foreign 
interests  paid  $245,633,541.  These  exports 
were  48  million  bushels  less  than  for 
1916.  Total  shipments  of  corn  in  1917 
were  52,169,583  bushels,  against  55,548,- 
298  bushels  in  1916. 

Q. — What  quantity  of  flour  did  we 
ship  since  war  began? 

A. — The  total  exports  of  wheat  and 
wheat  flour  to  Great  Britain,  France,  and 
Italy  were  equivalent  to  384,000,000  bush- 
els, or  an  average  of  110,000,000  bushels 
per  year.  Exports  of  pork  and  pork 
products  totaled  almost  2,000,000,000 
pounds,  while  sugar  exports  to  those 
countries  showed  a  yearly  average  of 


279 


280 


Questions  and  Answers 


648,000,000  pounds.  Oats  exports  for  the 
three  and  one-half  years  totaled  212,751,- 
ooo  bushels,  corn  24,310,000  bushels,  and 
rye  3,618,000  bushels. 

Q. — Did  we  do  equally  well  with 
meat  exports? 

A. — Exports  of  fresh  beef  amounted  to 
443,484,000  pounds  in  the  three  and  one- 
half  years,  while  exports  of  butter  to- 
taled 29,000,000  pounds,  cheese  103,500,000 
pounds,  and  condensed  milk  126,000,000 
pounds.  Cottonseed,  linseed,  and  other 
oil  products  and  by-products  to  be  used 
for  feeding  cattle,  totaled  611,000,000 
pounds. 

Q.— What  are  "Farm  Loans"? 

A. — To  relieve  farmers  from  the  high 
interest  charges  levied  by  private  interests 
when  they  need  loans,  a  Federal  Farm 
Loan  Act  was  passed  in  1916.  It  estab- 
lished 12  Federal  Land  Banks  and  these 
banks  lend  money  to  the  farmers  on  se- 
curity which  is  provided  as  follows :  in 
any  place  farmers  may  form  a  farm  loan 
association  and  this  association  can  go  to 
a  Federal  Loan  Bank  and  obtain  loans  on 
mortgages  laid  on  the  farm  property. 
These  loans  may  run  from  5  to  40  years 
and  are  at  6  per  cent  or  less.  The  Fed- 
eral Farm  Loan  Banks  get  their  funds 
by  selling  to  the  investing  public  bonds 
secured  by  the  mortgages. 

Q. — Has  this  method  been  success- 
ful? 

A. — Apparently  most  successful.  In 
October,  1917,  loans  amounted  to  about 
$64,000,000,  and  it  was  estimated  that  sev- 
eral hundred  million  would  soon  be  thus 
raised  and  turned  back  into  production 
by  being  expended  for  crops  and  im- 
provements. 

Q. — What  was  the  effect  of  the  war 
on  American  agricultural 
values  ? 

A. — Farm  products  of  the  United 
States  reached  the  unprecedented  value 
of  $19,443,849,381  during  1917,  an  in- 
crease of  more  than  $6,000,000,000  over 
1916  and  almost  $9,000,000,000  more  than 
in  1915.  The  estimate  shows  crops  were 
valued  at  $13,610,462,782  and  represented 
70  per  cent  of  the  value  of  all  farm  prod- 
ucts. Animals  and  animal  products  were 
valued  at  $5,833,386,599  in  1917,  an  in- 
crease of  almost  $1,500,000,000  over  1916. 


Q. — Which  States  profited  most 
from  the  rise  in  agricultural 
values  ? 

A. — Value  of  all  farm  crops  for  1917  by 
states,  not  including  the  value  of  animals 
and  animal  products,  shows  Illinois  first, 
Texas  second,  and  Iowa  third.  In  1916 
Texas  led,  with  Iowa  second  and  Illinois 
third. 

Illinois  is  the  banner  farm  crop  state. 
The  value  of  her  crops  last  year  exceed- 
ed that  of  Texas,  which  carried  away  the 
honor  in  1916.  Iowa's  crops  were  slightly 
under  those  of  Texas  in  value  last  year. 
Iowa  was  in  second  place  in  1916,  with 
Illinois  third. 

Q. — How  do  our  States  rank  agri- 
culturally? 

A. — We  give  the  states  in  geograph- 
ical order.  ^The  number  following  each 
state  name  indicates  its  rank  in  agricul- 
ture as  compared  with  the  rest:  Maine 
37;  New  Hampshire  46;  Vermont  42; 
Massachusetts  38 ;  Rhode  Island  48 ;  Con- 
necticut 39;  New  York  12;  New  Jersey 
341  Pennsylvania  13;  Delaware  44; 
Maryland  31;  Virginia  22;  West  Vir- 
ginia 30;  North  Carolina  n;  South  Caro- 
lina 15;  Georgia  6;  Florida  33;  Ohio  4; 
Indiana  8 ;  Illinois  i ;  Michigan  21 ;  Wis- 
consin 17 ;  Minnesota  9 ;  Iowa  3 ;  Mis- 
souri 5 ;  North  Dakota  27 ;  South  Dakota 
18;  Nebraska  7;  Kansas  14;  Kentucky 
16;  Tennessee  26;  Alabama  25;  Missis- 
sippi 19;  Louisiana  24;  Texas  2;  Okla- 
homa _23 ;  Arkansas  20 ;  Montana  35 ; 
Wyoming  40;  Colorado  28;  New  Mexico 
43 ;  Arizona  45 ;  Utah  41 ;  Nevada  47 ; 
Idaho  63 ;  Washington  29 ;  Oregon  32 ; 
California  10. 

Q. — How  much  of  our  increase  was 
new  wealth? 

A. — The  new  wealth  produced  on  the 
farms  in  1917  ($19,443,849,381)  compares 
with  former  years  as  follows : 

Animals  and 

Crops.  products. 

1917  $13,610,462,782  $5,833,386,599 

1916 9,054,458,922  4,351,905,089 

I9IS   6,907,186,742  3,868,303,670 

1914  6,111,684,020  3,783,276,511 

1913 6,132,758,962  3,7X6,753,549 

Q. — When  did  American  agricul- 
ture begin  to  prosper? 

A. — In  the  period  following  1897,  when 
prices  were  just  beginning  to  rise  from 
their  preceding  generation  of  declines, 


America's  Food 


281 


consequent  upon  the  opening  up  of  the 
great  West  to  surplus  grain  and  animal 
production. 

Q. — Did  our  agricultural  values  rise 
steadily  from  that  time? 

A. — Almost  without  a  break.  The  only 
pause  was  in  1911,  which  produced  a 
smaller  crop  in  value  than  1910.  The 
values  of  all  farm  produce  in  1917  were 
nearly  five  times  what  they  were  in  1897, 
twenty  years  before,  while  those  of  ani- 
mals and  their  products  were  four  times 
as  large.  In  the  same  period,  the  general 
average  of  all  commodities  rose  by  156 
per  cent;  or,  in  other  words,  prices  in 
1917  were  one  and  one-half  times  what 
they  were  twenty  years  before. 

Q. — Did  prices  for  foodstuff  to  the 
consumer  go  up  steadily  too? 

A. — 'Not  quite  so  steadily.  In  1901 
there  was  a  drop  from  the  preceding 
year;  in  the  depressed  year  1904  there 
was  another  decline,  which  was  not  re- 
covered until  1915. 

Q. — Is  wheat  our  most  valuable 
crop? 

A. — No.  In  America  corn  is  king.  In 
1917,  corn,  with  a  value  of  $4,053,672,000, 
led  all  other  crops. 

Q. — Did  wheat  come  next  in  value? 

A. — No.  Wheat  comes  almost  last. 
The  crop  next  in  value  to  corn  is  cotton, 
with  a  value  of  $1,517,558,000  in  1917. 
Then  come  hay,  valued  at  $1,359,491,000; 
wheat,  worth  $1,307,427,000,  and  oats, 
worth  $1,061,427,000. 

Q. — Did  our  live  stock  increase  or 
decrease  after  we  joined  the 
war? 

A. — Live  stock  in  the  United  States  on 
January  i,  1918,  was  valued  at  $8,263,524,- 
ooo,  the  Department  of  Agriculture  an- 
nounced. That  was  an  increase  of  $1,527,- 
912,000  over  the  year  before. 

Q. — How  do  prices  to-day  of  sugar, 
eggs,  corn,  wheat,  cotton,  but- 
ter, beans,  cattle,  hogs,  etc., 
compare  with  the  prices  of 
Civil  War  days? 

A. — Prices  of  these  foods  increased 
much  more  rapidly  than  in  this  war,  av- 
eraging then  probably  250  per  cent  more 
than  normal.  In  Civil  War  days  the 


price  of  sugar  increased  from  5  cents  to 
35  cents  a  pound,  eggs  from  14^2  to  46 
cents  per  dozen,  corn  meal  from  3%  to 
8^4  cents  per  pound,  wheat  from  94  cents 
to  $2.16  per  bushel,  cattle  from  $3.37 1/2 
to  $9.50  per  hundred  pounds,  butter  from 
l5/<2  to  55  cents  per  pound,  beans  from 
3l/2  to  nT/2  cents  per  pound,  cotton  from 
15^4  cents  to  $1.64  per  pound,  hogs  from 
$4.18  to  $15.60  per  hundred  pounds. 

Q. — What  caused  the  higher  prices 
in  Civil  War  days? 

A. — The  enormous  increases  in  prices 
during  Civil  War  days  were  almost  en- 
tirely due  to  the  speculative  operations 
and  to  the  inflation  of  the  currency  and 
depreciation  of  the  dollar.  No  taint  was 
attached  to  persons  who  made  money  out 
of  food  speculations  in  those  days.  It  is 
also  happily  true  that  higher  political  and 
commercial  ideals  by  American  business 
men  to-day  made  possible  the  United 
States  Food  Administration  which  in- 
duced business  men  to  voluntarily  keep 
prices  down  without  legal  compulsion. 

Q. — What  commodity  increased 
most  in  price  in  Civil  War 
days? 

A. — Alcohol,  which  went  from  37  cents 
to  $4.75  per  gallon.  The  same  percentage 
of  increase  to-day  would  make  alcohol 
sell  for  $43.63  per  gallon,  instead  of  its 
present  price  of  $3.75. 

Q. — Why  does  the  Food  Adminis- 
tration emphasize  the  saving 
of  meat,  wheat,  sugar  and  fats 
only?  Are  not  potatoes,  beans, 
corn,  etc.,  just  as  important 
foods? 

A. — Because  the  first  four  food  prod- 
ucts are  the  most  compact  food  products 
that  exist  in  large  quantities.  In  ship- 
ping food  to  Europe  we  must  pack  every 
cubic  yard  of  cargo-space  with  the  maxi- 
mum quantity  of  food  it  will  hold. 

Q. — Was  the  world's  wheat  yield 
in  1916  less  than  in  1915? 

A. — It  was  about  240,000,000  cwts.  less 
in  1916  than  in  1915. 

Q. — What  was  the  total  grain  pro- 
duction of  the  world  in  1916? 

A. — Excluding  the  crops  of  enemy  na- 
tions, particulars  of  which  are  not  avail- 
able, the  total  production  of  wheat,  rye, 
barley,  oats  and  maize  in  the  northern 


282  Questions  and  Answers 

and    southern    hemispheres    in    the    year  the  five-year  average  of  806,000,000  bush- 

1916-17  amounted   to  243,321,414  tons,   a  els.     The  normal   demand   for  seed  and 

decrease  of  50,795,383  tons,  compared  with  domestic     consumption     in     the     United 

1915,  and    19,145,481    tons    less   than   the  States  is  about  600,000,000  bushels,  which 
average  for  the  five  years  1911-1915,  the  would     leave     available     only    68000,000 
percentage  decline  being  in  each  case  17.3  bushels  for  exportation  to  the  Al!ies  and 
and  7.3  respectively.  to  neutrals. 

Wheat  exports  for  the  year  ending  in 
June,   1917,   were   149,837,427  bushels,   of 

Q. — What  is  the  American  wheat     which  144,486,749  went  to  the  Allied  pow- 
supply?  ers  a°d  to   European  neutrals.     To  this 

must  be  added  11,942,505  barrels  of  wheat 

A.— The    wheat    crop    of    the    United      flour,    7,366,294   of    which    were    sent    to 
States    for    1917    was    estimated    by    the      Europe. 

September  forecast  at  668,000,000  bushels,         The   needs   of   the   Allies  annually,   at 
as  compared  with  640,000,000  bushels  in      the     lowest    conservative     estimate,     are 

1916.  Both    of   these   yields    are    below     550,000,000  bushels  of  wheat. 


THE  WORLD'S  RAW  MATERIALS 


Q. — Where    is    warring    America 
weak  in  minerals? 

A. — The  war  strength  of  a  country  de- 
pends upon  the  developed  mineral  re- 
sources within  her  own  borders. 

Our  mineral  industry  is  equal  to  all  the 
war  demands  upon  it  in  all  but  seven 
products.  These  are :  potash,  nitrogen, 
manganese,  nickel,  tin,  platinum  and  py- 
rites, while  a  stringency  is  felt  in  regard 
to  mica,  graphite  and  a  few  lesser  min- 
erals. 

Q. — How  about  potash? 

A. — Potash  is  an  indispensable  fertiliz- 
ing material.  Three  years  ago,  Germany 
held  a  world  monopoly  of  this  substance. 
The  United  States  Government,  fortu- 
nately, through  its  research  bureaus, 
found  sources  of  domestic  supply.  As  a 
result,  America's  potash  production, 
which  made  a  modest  bow  in  1915,  for 
the  first  half  of  1917  had  risen  to  14,000 
tons,  valued  at  nearly  $6,000,000.  The 
greatest  single  source,  supplying  one- 
third?>  was  contributed  by  the  Nebraska 
Alkali  lakes.  A  further  increase  is  ex- 
pected from  the  newly  discovered  de- 
posits of  Searles  Lake.  Had  the  war 
come  five  years  earlier,  America  would 
have  been  involved  in  a  potash  famine. 

During  the  year,  the  United  States  will 
produce  scarcely  more  than  12  per  cent 
of  her  normal  potash  needs. 

Q. — How  can  we  get  nitrogen? 

A. — Nitrogen  is  even  more  important  to 
us  than  potash,  for,  aside  from  its  use 
in  agriculture,  it  forms  the  basis  of  all 
explosives.  Chile  has  supplied  the  United 
States  with  nitrogen  for  fifty  years  (from 
nitrate  (guano)  deposits),  but  it  may  be 
obtained  from  the  atmosphere  and  coal. 

In  countries  lacking  coal  or  with  abun- 
dant water  power,  the  air  is  the  most  pro- 
lific source  of  nitrogen.  Where  coal  is 
plentiful,  and  where  an  iron  industry  re- 
quires considerable  coke,  coal  is  the  most 
logical  source  of  supply. 

Coke  is  coal  from  which  nitrogen  and 
other  volatile  constituents  have  been  ex- 
tracted. Although  the  latter  conditions 
exist  in  America,  we  send  $20,000,000  to 
Chile  for  nitrogen  salts,  while  we  waste 
in  our  coke  industry  that  value  of  nitro- 
gen as  well  as  other  valued  by-products. 

The  Government  in   1916  authorized  a 


plant  to  extract  atmospheric  nitrogen  at 
a  cost  of  $20,000,000.  A  complete  recov- 
ery of  nitrogen  in  the  coke  industry 
would  have  more  completely  placed  the 
United  States  on  an  independent  basis 
with  regard  to  its  nitrogen  needs. 

Q. — Where  are  the  Chilean  nitrate 
deposits  situated? 

A. — In  the  northern  provinces  of  Tac- 
na,  Tarapaca,  Antofagasta  and  Atacama. 
The  first  two  were  taken  from  Peru  in 
the  war  of  1879-82.  By  the  terms  of  the 
treaty  of  1884,  Tacna  was  placed  under 
Chilean  authority  for  ten  years  only, 
after  the  lapse  of  which  period  the  in- 
habitants were  to  decide  by  referendum 
whether  they  wished  to  remain  Chilean  or 
revert  to  Peru.  Chile  has  consistently 
blocked  any  attempt  to  put  the  referendum 
on  the  ground  that  all  the  present  inhab- 
itants must  vote.  Peru  insists  that  only 
those  who  lived  there  when  the  treaty 
was  made  should  be  consulted.  The 
situation  thus  developed  is  somewhat  like 
that  which  would  complicate  a  referen- 
dum in  Alsace  and  TLorraine.  A  further 
similarity  is  caused  by  the  fact  that  the 
Germans  have  developed  the  iron  mines 
in  that  province  immensely,  and  to  do 
that  have  brought  in  great  numbers  of 
Teutons,  whose  vote  would  have  impor- 
tant weight.  The  Chileans  have  devel- 
oped the  huge  nitrate  deposits,  and  to 
do  that  have  brought  in  Chilean  laborers, 
who  would  no  doubt  vote  for  inclusion 
in  Chile.  As  the  Chilean  war  against 
Peru  had  as  object  the  acquisition  of 
these  valuable  deposits,  the  Chileans  are 
not  likely  to  part  with  them. 

Q. — How  much  saltpeter  does  Chile 
export  annually? 

A. — Nitrate  is  the  chief  export  of  the 
country.  The  quantity  sent  away  has 
steadily  increased  year  by  year — 1907, 
1,650,000  metric  tons;  1909,  2,309,000  tons; 
1913,  2,600,000  tons.  Since  the  war  the 
export  has,  of  course,  fallen  off,  as  Ger- 
many, which  took  more  than  any  other 
country,  was  isolated,  and  could  get  no 
supplies.  The  total  value  of  the  1913  ex- 
port was  $100,000,000,  of  which  some  $10,- 
000,000  worth  went  to  Great  Britain.  The 
royalty  collected  by  the  Chilean  Govern- 
ment on  the  nitrate  of  soda  produced 
yields  about  $20,000,000  a  year,  and  is  one 
of  the  chief  sources  of  national  revenue. 


283 


284 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — How  does  ship  shortage  af- 
fect our  war  material  supply? 

A. — Very  gravely,  because,  owing  to 
non-development  of  our  own  native  re- 
sources, we  depend  sadly  on  all  parts  of 
the  world  for  all  sorts  of  basic  ores  with 
out  which  our  steel  and  industries  are 
practically  helpless.  Thus,  ferro-man- 
ganese,  an  absolutely  essential  alloy  for 
high-grade  steel,  must  be  brought  from 
Europe  and  Brazil.  Tungsten,  necessary 
for  good  tool  steel,  comes  from  China 
and  South  America.  Tin  comes  from 
England,  the  Straits  Settlements  in  the 
Far  East  and  Bolivia.  We  have  to  draw 
our  chromite  (without  which  we  cannot 
make  perfect  armor-plate  or  projectiles) 
from  South  Africa  and  the  South  Seas, 
shipping  it  sometimes  almost  around  the 
world  to  get  it.  Graphite,  which  we  must 
have  for  crucibles  in  making  crucible 
steel,  comes  from  Africa  and  India. 
Mica,  indispensable  for  insulation  in  elec- 
trical apparatus,  comes  to  us  from  India. 
We  draw  zinc  from  Australia  and  sul- 
phur, a  fundamental  for  explosives,  from 
China  and  Europe. 

Q. — Could  American  mines  pro- 
duce all  the  basic  raw  mate- 
rials we  need? 

A. — Secretary  Lane  of  the  Department 
of  the  Interior  said  in  1918  that  we  im- 
port about  2,000,000  long  tons  a  year  of 
minerals  which  our  own  mines  might  pro- 
duce, if  the  Federal  government  gave  the 
necessary  assistance.  He  enumerated 
among  the  metals  so  imported,  which  are 
necessary  to  manufacture  war  munitions, 
sulphur,  manganese,  graphite,  tin,  mer- 
cury, tungsten,  antimony,  chromite,  mag- 
nesite  and  mica.  The  United  States  pro- 
duces some  of  these,  but  not  in  sufficient 
quantities.  It  has  deposits  of  others  of 
the  enumerated  minerals  which  have  not 
been  commercially  profitable  to  work  be- 
cause of  their  nature.  Some  of  these,  Mr. 
Lane  thinks,  might  be  made  profitable  by 
the  application  of  very  modern  scientific 
methods. 

Q. — Where  are  nickel  and  platinum 
found? 

A.— New  Caledonia,  in  the  South  Pa- 
cific, produces  most  of  the  world's  supply 
of  nickel,  but  Canada  has  furnished  us 
with  a  great  part  of  what  we  need. 

The  world  is  very  "hard  up"  for  plati- 
num, which  we  need  badly  for  electric  ap- 
pliances and  for  other  immediate  war  pur- 
poses. Russia  had  been  furnishing  93  per 
cent  of  the  world's  total  output  before  the 


war,  from  her  gold  deposits  in  the  Ural 
Mountains.  This  has  been  cut  off.  The 
Sudbury  district  in  Canada  has  some  in 
its  nickel  deposits,  and  there  is  some  in 
Bolivia. 

Q. — What  countries  exported  most 
coal  before  war? 

A. — The  principal  coal  exports  of  the 
world  in  1913,  including  that  used  for 
bunker  purposes,  were :  Great  Britain, 
93,000,000  tons;  Germany,  40,000,000; 
United  States,  29,000,000;  Austria-Hun- 
gary, 9,000,000;  Belgium  and  Canada, 
about  5,500,000  each  ;  Netherlands,  slightly 
less  than  5,000,000;  Japan,  nearly  4,000,- 
ooo;  British  South  Africa,  2,500,000,  and 
Australia,  2,000,000. 

It  must  be  noted  that  these  figures  do 
not  mean  that  Holland  is  a  coal-exporting 
country.  Holland  has  a  few  coal  mines 
but  would  not  send  any  coal  away  were 
it  not  for  the  necessity  of  coaling  the 
ships  that  call  at  her  ports.  Holland  is 
dependent  on  other  countries  for  coal,  as 
a  matter  of  fact. 

Q- — How  did  the  war  change  the 
coal  situation? 

A.— With  the  cutting  off  of  Germany's 
export  trade,  the  United  States  took  sec- 
ond rank  as  a  coal  exporter,  though  far 
behind  Great  Britain. 

Q. — Whence  does  Holland  now 
draw  her  coal? 

A. — She  is  obliged  to  get  it  from  Ger- 
many, as  England  has  none  to  spare;  but 
in  normal  times  she  drew  three-fourths 
of  her  supplies  from  the  coal  mines  of 
Great  Britain.  In  those  days  she  re- 
quired 10,000,000  tons  annually.  Now, 
however,  she  has  to  do  with  much  less, 
and  many  factories  have  been  closed  in 
consequence.  Germany  uses  her  coal  as  a 
lever  to  compel  the  Dutch  to  send  her 
supplies  of  food,  just  as  she  does  with 
Switzerland. 

Q. — What  was  the  total  amount  of 
coal  exported  by  all  countries 
before  war? 

A. — The  total  amount  of  coal  passing 
out  of  the  coal  producing  countries  of  the 
world  in  1913  was  about  200,000,000  tons, 
of  which  about  40,000,000  tons  was  bunker 
coal,  supplied  to  vessels  engaged  in  inter- 
national trade  for  their  use  on  the  oceans, 
while  a  considerable  percentage  of  that 
recorded  as  exports  went  to  the  world's 
coaling  stations,  where  it  was  supplied  to 
steamers. 


The  World's  Raw  Materials 


285 


Q. — How  much  of  the  coal  supply 
is  used  by  ships? 

A. — The  coal  burned  by  steam  vessels 
on  the  oceans  aggregates  in  normal 
times  about  $200,000,000  a  year  in  value 
out  of  a  total  of  nearly  $700,000,000 
worth  passing  out  of  the  coal  producing 
countries  of  the  world. 

Q. — Do  we  really  waste  our  coal? 

A. — One  of  the  bulletins  of  the  United 
States  National  Museum  says  that  the 
waste  that  blackens  the  skies  over  the 
American  cities  using  soft  coal  is  in  real- 
ity convertible  into  gas,  tar,  ammonia, 
benzol,  and  an  endless  number  of  other 
by-products,  such  as  dyes,  medicines,  and 
explosives. 

Q. — How  much  of  our  coal  do  we 
waste  ? 

A. — The  Government  bulletin  on  "Coal 
Products"  says : 

"Almost  one-seventh  of  our  coal  is  made 
into  coke,  so  great  are  the  demands  of 
the  iron  industry,  but  two-thirds  of  this 
coke  is  produced  without  regard  to  saving 
the  valuable  products  driven  off  during  its 
manufacture.  Therefore,  we  face  the 
alarming  conclusion  that  only  about  4  per 
cent  of  the  coal  mined  in  the  United 
States  yields  its  full  value  to  society." 

Q. — How  much  coal  does  France 
ordinarily  consume? 

A. — The  annual  production  was  about 
40,000,000  tons,  and  the  amount  imported 
about  8,000,000  tons.  The  total  consump- 
tion thus  would  appear  to  have  been 
nearly  50,000,000  tons  a  year.  More  than 
60  per  cent  of  the  coal  mined  in  France 
came  from  the  Flemish  coal  basin,  the 
whole  of  which  is  now  in  enemy  hands. 

Q. — Does    Spain    produce    all    the 
coal  she  wants? 

A. — Not  enough  has  been  mined  ordi- 
narily to  provide  all  the  quantity  needed. 
Ordinarily  about  5,000,000  tons  were  pro- 
duced, but  7,000,000  tons  were  required. 
An  agreement  was  arrived  at  by  which 
the  miners  undertook  to  work  two  hours 
extra  every  day,  a  special  premium  being 
given  them.  This  arrangement  has  in- 
creased the  output  to  more  than  7,000,000 
tons. 

Q. — What  is  the  amount  of  Chilean 
coal  imports? 

A. — The  Chileans  have  to  import  coal 
as  their  own  mines  do  not  yield  nearly 


enough  for  their  industrial  requirements. 
Before  the  war  they  were  importing  some 
$10,000,000  worth.  The  imports  from 
Great  Britain  were  greater  than  from 
any  other  country.  Next  came  Germany 
— almost  equal — and  then  the  United 
States,  a  good  way  behind. 

Q. — What  is  the  annual  production 
of  copper  in  the  world? 

A. — In  the  year  before  the  war  it  was 
about  800,000  tons,  Australia's  contribu- 
tion being  about  40,000  tons.  America 
since  then  has  greatly  increased  her  out- 
put, which,  in  1916,  was  said  to  have 
exceeded  1,000,000  tons. 

Q. — What  were  American  copper 
exports  in  1917? 

A. — In  1917  copper  exports  aggregated 
1,083,575.360  pounds  (more  than  half 
a  million  tons)  and  they  had  been  run- 
ning at  the  rate  of  more  than  2,240,000 
pounds  per  day  during  February,  1918. 

Q. — How  much  copper  did  we  re- 
fine? 

A. — The  country's  refineries  produced 
in  1917  a  total  of  2,300,000,000  pounds,  an 
increase  of  102,600,000  pounds  over  the 
output  of  copper  in  the  preceding  year. 
When  the  war  began  in  1914  the  refinery 
capacity  of  the  United  States  was  esti- 
mated at  1,778,000,000  pounds  a  year. 
Since  then  additional  facilities  have  been 
created  which  should  enable  the  refining 
works  to  produce  2,780,000,000  pounds  a 
year. 

Q. — Did  we  use  much  more  copper 
after  we  entered  the  war? 

A. — The  consumption  of  copper  in  1917 
which  passed  through  the  refineries  of 
the  United  States  is  estimated  to  have 
absorbed  all  the  metal  prepared  for  mar- 
ket in  the  twelve  months  and  nearly  29,- 
000,000  pounds  in  addition.  That  is,  the 
stocks  of  refined  copper  held  over  from 
1916,  which  amounted  to  about  128,000,000 
pounds  at  the  end  of  the  year,  were  not 
only  not  increased  during  1917,  but  were 
reduced  to  a  level  in  the  neighborhood  of 
100,000,000  pounds. 

Q. — What  is  the  monthly  copper 
production  of  all  America? 

A. — The  copper  production  of  the 
Western  Hemisphere  in  January,  1918,  is 
estimated  to  have  been  approximately 
173,000,000  pounds,  an  increase  of  4,000,- 


286 


Questions  and  Answers 


oop  pounds  over  the  December  output.  If 
this  extreme  rate  of  production  could  be 
maintained  the  year  around  (which  is 
highly  improbable)  the  total  output  of 
copper  for  this  hemisphere  alone  would 
be  more  than  a  million  tons  in  the  year. 

Q. — Is  much  copper  found  in 
Chile? 

A. — At  one  time  Chile  was  the  greatest 
producer  of  copper  in  the  world,  but  her 
mines  have  been  neglected.  The  great 
war  demand  for  copper  has,  however, 
caused  much  activity,  and  Americans  have 
invested  largely. 

Q. — Whence  does  Great  Britain  get 
most  of  her  copper? 

A. — From  the  United  States,  mostly  in 
the  form  of  unwrought  copper.  Of  the 
total  British  import  in  1914  of  147,700 
tons,  04,800  was  from  the  United  States. 

Q. — Could  the  Allies  get  enough 
gasoline  in  their  own  hemi- 
sphere? 

A. — The  need  of  the  Allied  nations  in 
Europe  for  American  gasoline  was  dis- 
played in  the  January,  1918,  figures  of 
exports,  reported  by  the  Bureau  of  Com- 
merce. The  amount  of  gasoline,  naph- 
thas and  other  light  refined  oil  products 
shipped  abroad  was  41,686,142  gallons, 
compared  with  35,335,977  in  the  same 
month,  1917,  and  38,065,244  in  January, 
1916.  Crude  oil,  fuel  oil  and  residuum, 
lubricating  and  illuminating  oil  exports 
declined  substantially  in  comparison  with 
the  preceding  January.  Gasoline  for  ex- 
port in  barrels  was  advanced  20  points  in 
price  by  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of 
New  York  on  February  27  last.  The 
price  in  1918  was  reported  at  12.70  cents 
a  gallon  when  shipped  in  barrels. 

Q. — Does  the  British  Admiralty 
own  oil  fields  in  Southern  Per- 
sia and  Asia  Minor? 

A. — Yes.  It  was  to  protect  this  source 
of  supply  that  early  in  the  war  a  British 
warship  appeared  in  the  Persian  Gulf,  and 
a  very  strong  Indian  contingent  was 
landed,  which  speedily  took  Basra  (the 
old  Bassorah  of  Sinbad  the  Sailor  in  the 
Arabian  Nights  Tales),  the  port  from 
which  the  oil  is  shipped. 

Q. — From  which  countries  is  petro- 
leum drawn? 

A. — Most  of  it  comes  from  the  United 
States,  but  Mexico's  yield  is  steadily  in- 


creasing.    During  1915  the  recorded  pro- 
duction was  as  follows : — 

Gallons. 

United   States    11,806,372,368 

Russia    2,879,018,604 

Me*'c°    •  •  •  ••  V. 1,382,241,336 

Dutch  East  Indies 520  245  936 

Roumania 505,256,346 

British  India   310,800,000 

Gahcia   174,673,758 

Q- — How  much  oil  is  being  ob- 
tained from  the  Mexican  oil- 
fields? 

A.— It  seems  certain  that  hardly  a  start 
has  been  made  toward  the  actual  full 
development  of  the  Mexican  oil-fields, 
which  are  in  the  Tampico  district.  Fif- 
teen of  the  wells  now  operated  there  have 
a  capacity  of  250  million  barrels  a  year. 
When  we  note  that  the  total  yield  on  oil 
in  the  United  States  in  1916  was  307  mil- 
lion barrels,  we  are  led  to  credit  the  as- 
sertion that  the  full  capacity  of  the  Tam- 
pico territory  probably  would  equal  the 
output  of  all  other  oil  regions  in  the  world 
combined. 

Q. — Who  owns  the  Tampico  oil- 
fields? 

A. — They  belong  for  the  greater  part  to 
four  great  companies,  although  there  are 
about  275  smaller  operators.  The  big 
companies  are:  the  Mexican  Petroleum, 
controlling  700,000  acres,  incorporated  in 
California;  the  Aguila,  holding  700,000 
acres  close  to  the  coast,  a  British  cor- 
poration, controlled  by  Lord  Cowdray; 
the  Royal  Dutch  Shell  Trading  and 
Transport  Company,  holding  1,000,000 
acres  in  two  blocks,  in  which  Queen  Wil- 
helmina  and  the  Royal  Family  of  Holland 
are  interested,  as  are  the  Rothschilds; 
the  Penn  Mex  Oil  Company,  owning 
600,000  acres  just  south  of  Tampico,  a 
Standard  Oil  concern. 

Q. — Does  Great  Britain  depend 
greatly  on  imports  for  raw  ma- 
terial? 

A. — She  depends  almost  entirely  upon 
them  for  everything  except  coal  and  iron. 
She  produces  about  5,000,000  tons  of  iron 
from  her  own  ore,  and  about  4,500,000 
from  foreign  ores ;  in  addition,  in  ordi- 
nary times,  she  imported  about  5,000,000 
tons  of  iron  and  steel  from  abroad.  She 
has  to  import  all  the  copper  she  needs, 
and  practically  all  the  tin  and  lead.  No 
cotton  is  grown  in  England,  or  rubber. 
Silk  must  all  come  from  overseas,  and 


The  World's  Raw  Materials 


287 


almost  all  the  petroleum,  too,  must  cross 
the  water.  Much  wool  is  produced,  but 
far  more  has  to  be  imported,  and  there  is, 
in  ordinary  times,  very  little  timber  hewn 
in  the  United  Kingdom.  Leather,  in  the 
form  of  hides  and  skins,  comes  from 
abroad,  and  immense  quantities  of  oil- 
seeds, fats,  gums,  and  the  like,  have  to  be 
imported.  The  value  of  the  ^raw  material 
brought  into  the  country  in  1913  was 
£281,000,000  ($1,400,000,000).  In  all,  some 
£668,000,000  worth  of  foodstuffs  and  raw 
and  semi-manufactured  material  went  into 
the  United  Kingdom  in  1913. 

Q. — How  many  paper  mills  are 
there  in  Great  Britain? 

A. — In  ordinary  times  there  were  270 
mills  usually  engaged  in  making  paper. 
Many  of  these  must  have  closed  down 
owing  to  the  shortage  of  supplies. 

Q. — Does  Great  Britain  ordinarily 
draw  most  of  her  wood  pulp 
from  Sweden? 

A. — Roughly  half.  The  rest  comes 
from  Norway  and  Canada.  Lord  North- 
cliffe  owns  large  forests  in  Newfound- 
land, and  has  an  up-to-date  pulping  plant 
not  far  from  St.  Johns.  He  turns  the 
pulp  into  paper  in  his  mills  in  England, 
however.  By  no  means  all  the  paper  pro- 
duced in  Great  Britain  is  made  from 
wood  pulp.  Much  of  it  is  produced  from 
esparte  grass,  huge  ^  quantities  of  which 
come  from  Algeria  in  ordinary  times. 

Q. — Has  the  English  prohibition  of 
wood  pulp  severely  hit  the 
Swedes? 

A. — It  must  haye  done  so.  Before  the 
war  some  30,000  workers  were  employed 
in  the  wood-pulp  mills,  and  since 
the  struggle  began  the  production  of  pulp 
should  have  increased  materially,  as  the 
German  supplies  were  no  longer  avail- 
able for  the  world's  markets. 

Q. — How  much  wood  pulp  does 
Great  Britain  usually  import 
from  Sweden? 

A. — About  £1,500,000  ($7,500,000)  worth 
annually. 

Q. — Is  wood  pulp  the  principal  ma- 
terial exported  to  Great  Brit- 
ain from  Sweden? 

A. — No.  It  comes  sixth  on  the  list. 
The  main  thing  exported  is  timber.  More 
than  $50,000,000  worth  is  exported  annu- 


ally, £3,000,000  worth  going  to  Great 
Britain.  The  other  notable  purchase  from 
Sweden  is  butter.  Nearly  £2,000,000 
worth  is  sent  across  the  North  Sea  for 
British  consumption. 

Q. — Is  there  a  Controller  of  the 
timber  of  the  United  King- 
dom? 

A. — Sir  Dampfylde  Fuller  was  appoint- 
ed by  the  War  Office  Controller  of  Tim- 
ber in  February.  He  is  concerned  with 
the  supply  of  timber  for  the  use  of  the 
army  and  the  control  of  use  of  timber 
in  the  United  Kingdom,  with  a  view  to 
effecting  economy  in  its  use  for  all  pur- 
poses, and  the  stimulation  of  the  felling 
of  timber  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Sir 
Dampfylde  was  Lieut-Governor  of  East- 
ern Bengal,  and  has  had  a  long  experience 
in  India  in  various  capacities. 

Q. — Were  the  forests  of  England 
felled  to  provide  wood  for 
trench  building  in  France  and 
mining  in  England? 

A. — Lloyd  George  has  said  that  more 
labor  would  be  required  for  the  felling 
and  sawing  of  timber  than  for  the  mining 
of  iron  ore,  which  was  making  a  very 
heavy  demand  on  the  labor  market.  He 
mentioned  that  Great  Britain  imported 
6.400,000  tons  of  timber.  Of  this  total 
2,000,000  were  pit  props  for  the  colleries, 
and  the  bulk  of  the  remainder  was  used 
for  military  purposes  in  England  and 
France.  We  have  to  remember  that 
jfreshly  felled  trees  do  not  give  much 
wood  suitable  for  use  in  mining,  where 
seasoned  wood  is  required.  It  is  said  that 
none  of  the  trees  being  felled  in  British 
or  French  forests  will  be  fit  to  use  for 
any  purpose  for  at  least  eighteen  months 
after  cutting. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  wooden  clogs  are 
being  worn  in  England? 

A. — Owing  to  the  great  scarcity  of 
leather  wooden  shoes  came  into  demand 
in  the  United  Kingdom.  The  old  indus- 
try of  making  them  was  revived,  and 
when  the  Belgian  Government  attempted 
to  place  an  order  for  100,000  pairs  of 
sabots  it  was  found  that  the  English 
workers  were  so  busy  making  wooden 
shoes  for  home  use  that  no  one  could 
undertake  to  produce  any  for  other  needs. 

Q. — How  much  cotton  does  Egypt 
produce? 

A. — The  Nile  yield  is  about  800,000,000 
pounds.  In  a  good  year  the  crops  might 


288 


Questions  and  Answers 


possibly  be  increased  by  about  10  per 
cent,  but  this  is  the  utmost  that  can  be 
expected  with  the  area  under  cultivation. 
It  is  said  that  the  production  could  be 
increased  by  about  100  per  cent  if  all  pos- 
sible irrigation  works  are  executed  in 
Egypt  and  in  the  Upper  Nile  region,  but 
that  result  could  not  be  attained  for  an- 
other 25  or  30  years.  When  it  had  been 
attained,  however,  the  agricultural  re- 
sources of  the  country  would  have  been 
developed  to  their  fullest  extent,  and  the 
limit  of  yield  would  have  been  reached. 

Q. — Does  Australia  lead  the  world 
in  wool  production? 

A. — Yes.     There  are  indications,  how- 
ever, that  eventually  the  combined  produc- 


tion of  Argentine  and  Uruguay  will  be 
greater  than  hers.  Uruguay  is  a  territory 
where  the  merino  flourishes  as  well  as  in 
Australia.  There  are  said  to  be  about 
21,000,000  merinos  in  all  in  that  country. 
There  also  are  many  in  South  Africa, 
but  the  South  African  wool  is  said  not  to 
be  quite  as  good  as  Australian,  though 
some  of  it  brings  almost  as  much  in  the 
English  markets.  Taking  the  production 
of  1912,  we  find  that  Australasia  was  re- 
sponsible for  840,000,000  pounds  of  the 
world's  wool  clip.  Argentina  for  415,000,- 
ooo  pounds,  Russia  for  380,000,000  pounds, 
the  United  States  for  322,000,000  pounds, 
the  United  Kingdom  for  145,000,000 
pounds,  Uruguay  for  130,000,000,  and 
South  Africa  for  112,000,000.  In  1904 
the  wool  clip  in  Argentina  was  only 
330,000,000  pounds, 


AMERICAN  CONDUCT  OF  WAR 


Q.  —  What   is   war   tax   on   excess 
profits  ? 

A.—  Under  the  act  of  October  3,  1917, 
a  tax  is  levied  on  the  net  incomes  of  in- 
dividuals, partnerships,  or  corporations 
•which  (after  certain  permitted  deduc- 
tions) are  in  excess  of  certain  percentages 
of  the  invested  capital  of  such  individ- 
uals, etc.  The  rates  are  as  follows  :  20 
per  cent  of  profits  not  in  excess  of  15  per 
cent  of  the  invested  capital  ;  25  per  cent 
of  profits,  15  per  cent  and  not  in  excess 
of  20  per  cent  of  invested  capital;  35 
per  cent  of  profits,  20  per  cent  and  not 
in  excess  of  25  per  cent  of  invested  cap- 
ital; 45  per  cent  of  profits,  25  per  cent 
and  not  in  excess  of  33  per  cent  of  in- 
vested capital  ;  60  per  cent  of  profits,  33 
per  cent  and  better  of  invested  capital. 
In  addition,  in  the  case  of  a  trade  or 
business  (a  term  which  includes  the  pro- 
fessions as  well)  having  no  invested  cap- 
ital or  only  a  nominal  capital,  a  tax  of 
8  per  cent  is  levied  on  all  net  incomes, 
of  individuals,  above  $6,oop,  or  of  cor- 
porations, above  $3,000.  Finally  the  tax 
of  \2}/2  per  cent  which  was  levied  by  the 
act  of  September  8,  1916,  on  the  net  in- 
comes of  all  persons,  corporations,  etc., 
manufacturing  munitions,  electric  motor 
boats,  submarines,  etc.,  or  parts  of  same, 
is  reduced  after  January  i,  next,  to  10 
per  cent. 

Q.  —  What  is  the  war  tax  on  in- 
comes ? 


A.—  Under  the  act  of  October  3, 
new  income  taxes  are  imposed.  The  pre- 
ceding law  taxed  the  net  incomes  of  in- 
dividuals in  excess  of  $3,000  for  an  un- 
married man  and  $4,000  for  a  head  of  a 
family.  The  war  tax  bill  reduces  the 
exemption  of  unmarried  persons  to 
$1,000  and  of  heads  of  families  to  $2,000, 
but  grants  an  additional  exemption  of 
$200  for  each  dependent  child.  The  sur- 
taxes on  incomes  of  $5,000  and  over  are 
the  same  for  all,  as  follows  :  Between 
$5,000  and  $7,500,  i  per  cent;  $7,500  and 
$10,000,  2  per  cent  ;  $10,000  and  $12,500, 
3  per  cent;  $12,500  and  $15,000,  4  per 
cent;  $15,000  and  $20,000,  5  per  cent; 
$20,000  and  $40,000,  8  per  cent;  $40,000 
and  $60,000,  12  per  cent  ;  $60,000  and 
$80,000,  17  per  cent;  $80,000  and  $100,000, 
22  per  cent;  $100,000  and  $150,000,  27 
per  cent;  $150,000  and  $300,000,  42  per 
cent;  $300,000  and  $500,000,  46  per  cent; 


$500,000  and  $750,000,  50  per  cent;  $750,- 
ooo  and  $1,000,000,  55  per  cent;  $1,000,000 
and  $1,500,000,  61  per  cent;  $1,500,000 
and  $2,000,000,  62  per  cent;  over  $2,000,- 
ooo,  63  per  cent. 

Q.— What  is  the  Trading  with  the 
Enemy  Act? 

A. — The  trading  with  the  Enemy  Act 
provides  that  a  person  who  is  "an  enemy" 
or  ally  of  enemy  "doing  business  within 
the  United  States"  may  apply  for  a  license 
to  continue  to  do  business  in  the  United 
States.  This  act  prohibits  and  imposes 
severe  penalties  on  communicating  with 
the  enemy,  but  licenses  may  be  granted 
for  relief  from  the  various  "communica- 
tions." 

Q. — Who  is  officially  an  enemy  of 
the  United  States? 

A. — (a)  An  enemy,  according  to  the 
Trading  with  the  Enemy  Act,  is  "Any 
individual,  partnership,  or  other  body  of 
individuals  of  any  nationality,  resident 
within  the  territory  (including  that  occu- 
pied by  the  military  and  naval  forces)  of 
any  nation  with  which  the  United  States 
is  at  war,  or  resident  outside  the  United 
States  and  doing  business  within  such 
territory,  and  any  corporation  incorpo- 
rated within  such  territory  of  any  nation 
with  which  the  United  States  is  at  war 
or  incorporated  within  any  country  other 
than  the  United  States  and  doing  business 
within  such  territory. 

(b)  The  government  of  any  nation  with 
which  the  United  States  is  at  war,  or  any 
political  or  municipal  subdivison  thereof, 
or  any  officer,  official,  agent,  or  agency 
thereof. 

(3)  Such  other  individuals,  or  body  or 
class  of  individuals,  as  may  be  natives, 
citizens,  or  subjects  of  any  nation  with 
which  the  United  States  is  at  war,  other 
than  citizens  of  the  United  States,  wher- 
ever resident,  or  wherever  doing  business 
as  the  President,  if  he  shall  find  the  safety 
of  the  United  States  or  the  successful 
prosecution  of  the  war  shall  so  require, 
may,  by  proclamation,  include  within  the 
term  "enemy." 

Q. — What  is  a  person  holding 
property  of  an  enemy  expected 
to  do? 

A. — Any  person  in  the  United  States 
who  holds  or  has  custody  or  control  of 


289 


290 


Questions  and  Answers 


any  property  himself  or  in  behalf  of  an 
enemy  or  an  ally  of  an  enemy  is  ex- 
pected to  report  the  fact  to  the  Alien 
Property  Custodian  by  written  statement 
under  oath,  containing  such  particulars  as 
such  custodian  may  require. 

Q. — Is  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  bound  by  a  contract 
with  a  citizen  of  one  of  the 
Central  Powers? 

A. — Any  contract  entered  into  prior  to 
the  beginning  of  the  war,  between  any 
citizen  of  the  United  States  and  any 
citizen  of  the  Central  Powers,  the  terms 
of  which  provide  for  delivery  during  or 
after  the  war,  may  be  abrogated  by  serv- 
ing a  thirty  days'  notice  in  writing,  upon 
the  Alien  Property  Custodian  of  his  dis- 
trict. 

Q. — What  happens  to  money  be- 
longing to  enemies  of  the 
United  States  seized  under  the 
Enemy  Alien  Act? 

A. — All  money  paid  to  the  Alien  Prop- 
erty Custodian  belonging  to  the  enemy  is 
deposited  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  and  invested  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  in  United  States  bonds.  At 
the  end  of  the  war,  any  claim  of  an 
enemy  alien  or  ally  of  an  enemy  to  any 
money  or  other  property  received  or  held 
by  the  Alien  Property  Custodian  or  de- 
posited in  the  United  States  Treasury 
shall  be  settled  as  Congress  directs.  The 
President  and  the  officials  whom  he  ap- 
points to  assist  him  in  administering  the 
Trading  with  the  Enemy  Act  have  very 
broad  authority  to  seize  all  property  of 
whatever  kind  and  hold  it  during  the 
period  of  the  war. 

Q. — What  was  President  Wilson's 
Cabinet  when  war  began? 

A. — Secretary  of  State,  Robert  Lan- 
sing; Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  William 
Gibbs  McAdoo ;  Secretary  of  War,  New- 
ton Diehl  Baker ;  Attorney  General, 
Thomas  Watt  Gregory ;  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  Josephus  Daniels ;  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  Franklin  Knight  Lane ;  Secre- 
tary of  Agriculture,  David  Franklin 
Houston ;  Secretary  of  Commerce,  Wil- 
liam Cox  Redfield ;  Secretary  of  Labor, 
William  Bauchop  Wilson. 

Q. — Were  women  called  in  by  the 
American  government  to  help? 

A. — A  group  of  10  representative 
women  of  the  United  States  was  ap- 


pointed by  the  Council  of  National  De- 
fense, April  21,  1917,  to  coordinate  and 
centralize  the  war  work  of  women.  The 
members  are  Dr.  Anna  Howard  Shaw,  of 
New  York,  chairman ;  Miss  Ida  Tarbell, 
of  New  York,  vice-chairman ;  Mrs.  Philip 
N.  Moore,  of  St.  Louis,  secretary;  Mrs. 
Stanley  McCormick,  of  Boston,  treas- 
urer; Mrs.  Josiah  E.  Cowles,  of  Cali- 
fornia ;  Miss  Maud  Wetmore,  of  Rhode 
Island ;  Mrs.  Carrie  Chapman  Catt,  of 
New  York;  Mrs.  Antoinette  Funk,  of 
Illinois ;  Mrs.  Joseph  R.  Lamar,  of 
Georgia;  and  Miss  Agnes  Nestor,  of 
Illinois.  The  organization  has  State  divi- 
sions in  48  States,  and  acts  as  a  mouth- 
piece of  the  Government,  sending  mes- 
sages to  women,  stimulating  patriotic 
service,  and  supplying  a  channel  for  ef- 
fective prosecution  of  war  work.  There 
are  10  departments  or  sub-committees 
finding  their  counterpart  in  State,  county, 
and  civic  units,  namely,  registration,  food 
production  and  home  economics,  food 
administration,  women  in  industry,  child 
welfare,  maintenance  of  existing  social 
service  agencies,  health  and  recreation, 
education,  Liberty  Loan,  and  home  and 
foreign  relief.  Headquarters  at  1814  N 
Street  NW.,  Washington,  D.  C,  is  clear- 
ing house  for  war  activities  through 
organizations  and  through  individ- 
uals. 


Q. — Did  Congress  assume  any  part 
in  the  question  of  peace  terms  ? 

A. — Congress,  by  common  consent,  and 
with  the  undoubted  approval  of  the  na- 
tion, avoided  discussion  for  a  considerable 
period  after  the  Declaration  of  War,  and 
left  the  matter  entirely  in  the  hands  of 
the  President. 

In  the  session  of  Congress  which  passed 
the  Declaration  of  War,  a  few  sporadic 
attempts  were  made  to  begin  discussion 
but  they  went  no  further  than  isolated 
speeches  and  resolutions,  which  were 
tabled. 

The  next  session  of  Congress  also  re- 
frained from  any  discussion  until  after 
the  famous  Message  by  President  Wilson 
outlining  peace  terms  and  war  aims.  On 
January  31,  1918,  Senators  Borah  of  Idaho 
and  Owen  of  Oklahoma  each  offered 
resolutions  covering  the  subject.  The 
resolutions  were  supported  by  speeches, 
and  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs. 

These  may  be  held  to  have  been  the 
first  actual  and  really  important  steps  by 
Congress  to  reassume  its  share  of 
activity. 


American  Conduct  of  War 


291 


Q. — Would  the  use  of  a  base  in 
South  America  by  a  German 
raider  infringe  the  Monroe 
Doctrine? 

A. — It  has  been  freely  asserted  that  the 
existence  of  such  a  base  would  be  a 
violation  of  this  Doctrine,  but  that  asser- 
tion, like  many  others,  is  due  to  a  mis- 
conception, or,  at  best,  is  a  great  stretch- 
ing of  the  principles'  laid  dovra.  in  the 
Doctrine.  The  Monroe  Doctrine,  in  its 
original  form,  only  aimed  at  preventing 
European  Powers  from  interfering  in  the 
territorial  arrangements  on  the  continents 
of  America.  The  scope  of  the  Doctrine 
has  been  enlarged  from  time  to  time,  and 
it  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  meaning 
that  the  United  States  of  America  has 
assumedly  a  protectorate  over  all  the 
Latin-American  Republics,  and  is  respon- 
sible for  their  doings.  This  is,  of  course, 
not  the  case.  The  United  States  might 
interfere  in  the  event  of  one  of  these 
Republics  doing  something  which  brought 
it  into  direct  conflict  with  some  European 
country.  Only  in  the  danger  of  such  a 
thing  happening  could  the  creation  of  a 
base  for  a  German  raider  in  South 
America  distinctly  have  any  connection 
with  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Q. — What  is  the  Monroe  Doctrine? 

A. — Washington  recommended  that  the 
United  States  should  avoid  entangling 
itself  in  the  politics  of  Europe.  That 
policy  has  been  consistently  followed, 
and  in  our  own  time  was  reaffirmed  for- 
mally when  the  United  States  delegates 
signed  The  Hague  Conventions  with  the 
proviso  that  nothing  contained  therein 
should  be  so  construed  as  "to  require  the 
United  States  to  depart  from  its  tradi- 
tional policy  of  not  intruding  upon,  inter- 
fering with,  or  entangling  itself  in, 
the  political  questions,  or  policy,  or  inter- 
nal administration  of  any  foreign  State, 
nor  shall  anything  contained  in  the  said 
Conventions  be  construed  to  imply  a  re- 
linquishment  by  the  United  States  of  its 
traditional  attitude  towards  purely  Amer- 
ican questions."  This  "traditional  atti- 
tude" is  the  second  great  American  prin- 
ciple, ranking  next  after  Washington's 
policy.  It  is  known  as  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine because  it  was  officially  and  fully 
declared  for  the  first  time  by  President 
Monroe^  in  1823.  At  that  time  it  was 
feared  in  America  that  the  combination 
of  European  Powers  known  as  the  Holy 
Alliance  meant  to  interfere  in  South 
America  to  restore  the  Spanish  colonies 
to  Spain,  these  having  asserted  their  in- 
dependence. The  Monroe  Doctrine  de- 


clared that  there  must  be  no  intervention 
by  foreign  powers  in  the  political  affairs 
of  independent  American  States,  and  also 
warned  off  European  Powers  desirous  of 
founding  colonies  on  the  American  con- 
tinents. Originally  aimed  to  prevent  the 
overthrow  of  independent  republics,  the 
Doctrine  has  become  a  permanent  part 
of  the  foreign  policy  of  the  United  States, 
and  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  sort  of 
general  protectorate  over  the  whole  of 
the  New  World.  In  brief,  it  means  that 
the  United  States  will  not  tolerate  any 
European  interference  whatever  in  any 
part  of  the  American  continent. 

Q. — What  was  the  famous  Senate 
bill  for  creating  a  War  cabi- 
net? 

A. — It  was  a  bill  made  public  by  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Military  Affairs 
establishing  a  War  Cabinet  to  be  com- 
posed of  "three  distinguished  citizens  of 
demonstrated  ability,"  to  be  appointed  by 
the  President,  with  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate.  Its  powers  were  to  be 
very  great,  both  as  to  advice,  investiga- 
tion, and  control. 

Q. — What  was  the  attitude  of  the 
President  regarding  the  war 
cabinet  proposal? 

A. — He  objected  unqualifiedly  and 
sharply.  He  declared  his  objection  to  any 
form  of  interference  with  the  executive 
conduct  of  the  war. 

Q. — When  did  Secretary  Baker 
make  his  famous  statement  be- 
fore the  Senate? 

A. — He  made  this  statement  before  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Military  Affairs 
on  January  28,  1918.  It  followed  charges 
made  by  Senator  Chamberlain  that  the 
war  department  had  failed  to  do  all  that 
it  should  have  done.  The  Secretary  of 
War  had  appeared  some  time  before  to 
testify  before  the  Committee,  and  his 
statements  then  had  lacked  circumstantial- 
ity and  fullness.  The  statement  of  Jan- 
uary 28  was  one  of  the  most  elaborate 
ever  made  by  an  officer  of  government  in 
this  country,  and  it  gave  the  nation  a 
most  vivid  and  clear  picture  of  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  problem  confronting  the 
government  and  people,  and  of  the  vast 
undertakings  and  efforts  that  were  nec- 
essary to  conduct  the  war. 

Q. — What  was  the  gist  of  the  sec- 
retary's statement? 

A. — That  while  errors  had  been  made, 
and  shortcomings  existed,  the  work  of 


Questions  and  Answers 


the  War  Department  as  a  whole  had  been 
extraordinarily  good  and  successful. 

Q. — When  was  the  post  of  Sur- 
veyor-General of  Army  Pur- 
chases created,  and  why? 

A. — Secretary  Baker  announced  this 
appointment  on  January  25  after  Senator 
Chamberlain's  public  criticisms.  The 
officer  thus  created  was  appointed  to  be 
in  charge  of  the  procurement  and  pro- 
duction of  all  supplies  by  the  five  army 
bureaus,  viz.,  Ordnance,  Quartermaster, 
Signal,  Engineer,  and  Medical.  It  was  to 
be  his  duty  to  co-ordinate  such  pur- 
chases and  properly  relate  the  same  to 
industry  to  the  end  that  the  army  pro- 
gram be  developed  under  a  comprehen- 
sive plan  which  should  best  utilize  the 
resources  of  the  country. 

Q. — Was  an  army  officer  ap- 
pointed to  the  new  post  of  Sur- 
veyor-General ? 

A. — A  civilian  was  appointed — Edward 
R.  Stettinius,  who  had  been  in  practical 
charge  of  purchases  for  the  Allies  during 
the  war  while  the  United  States  was 
neutral.  He  was  a  member  of  the  firm 
of  J.  P.  Morgan  and  Company,  having 
entered  it  about  two  years  before.  He 
was  born  in  St.  Louis  in  1865,  was  grad- 
uated from  the  St.  Louis  University,  and 
entered  business  in  1883.  From  1006  to 
1915  he  was  president  of  the  Diamond 
Match  Company. 

Q. — What  new  American  govern- 
mental agencies  were  created? 

A. — Leading  agencies  were:  shipping 
board,  food  administration,  fuel  adminis- 
tration, war  industries  board,  raw  ma- 
terials board,  aircraft  production  board, 
Allies'  purchasing  board,  war  trade  board 
and  a  director-general  of  railroads. 
There  was  also  a  board  controlling  prior- 
ity of  freight  shipments. 

Q. — What  acts,  not  financial,  were 
passed  to  authorize  war  meas- 
ures? 

A. — Following  the  declaration  of  war 
(April  6,  1917),  Congress  passed,  first, 
an  act  granting  the  President  authority  to 
take  over  enemy  merchant  vessels  in 
American  ports.  On  May  18  there  was 
passed  the  Selective  Draft  Act,  authoriz- 
ing the  drafting  of  American  citizens  into 
a  great  National  Army,  and  also  bringing 
the  Regular  Army  to  full  war  strength, 


besides  placing  the  various  National 
Guards  (armed  militia)  of  the  States  into 
the  Federal  service. 

Q. — Did  other  acts  confer  further 
authority  on  the  President? 

A. — An  act,  called  the  "espionage  act," 
gave  the  Federal  Government  immensely 
large  powers  over  the  people,  and  inci- 
dentally authorized  the  President  to  lay 
embargoes  on  exports  at  his  discretion,  an 
authorization  that  gave  the  Government 
enormous  powers  of  control  over  the  na- 
tion's and  the  world's  commerce.  Then 
followed  a  food  and  fuel  bill  for  exer- 
cising control  over  those  great  economic 
necessities.  There  were  also  the  act  reg- 
ulating trade  with  the  enemy  and  the  law 
for  insuring  men  in  the  military  and 
naval  service  of  the  country. 

Q. — What  was  the  early  effect  of 
government  operation  of  the 
railroads  ? 

A. — After  a  month  of  government  op- 
eration the  figures  showed  that  there  had 
been  a  decided  reduction  in  accumulations 
of  export  freight  at  the  seaports,  caused 
by  the  increased  fuelling  of  ships  and  by 
the  embargoes  placed  on  certain  kinds  of 
shipment. 

More  than  4,000  freight  cars  thus  were 
emptied  and  released  for  further  use. 
The  Regional  Director  of  Railroads  re- 
ceived the  following  detailed  report 
showing  the  car  situation  at  six  North 
Atlantic  ports  on  January  i,  1918,  when 
the  government  took  the  roads  out  of 
private  control,  and  on  February  i,  after 
a  month  of  government  control : 

Ports.  Jan.  I.  Feb.  I.  Dec.  P.  C. 

Boston    1,100       998  192  16.14 

New    York 24,971,19,723  5,248  24.02 

Philadelphia    ..  3,531    3,3<>7  224  6.34 

Baltimore    7,164    5,878  1,286  17.95 

Newport  News.  1,653     1,284  369  22.32 

Norfolk    2,592    2,403  189  7.29 


All  ports   ...41,101  33,593    7,508    18.27 

Q.— What  is  the  Council  of  Na- 
tional Defense? 

A. — It  was  established  by  Congress  in 
1916,  and  consists  of:  Secretary  of  War, 
Newton  D.  Baker,  chairman ;  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  Josephus  Daniels ;  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  Franklin  K.  Lane ;  Sec- 
retary of  Agriculture,  David  F.  Houston ; 
Secretary  of  Commerce,  William  C.  Red- 
field  ;  Secretary  of  Labor,  William  B. 
Wilson. 


American  Conduct  of  War 


293 


Its  function  as  specified  in  the  act  of 
Congress  creating  it  is  stated  as  the 
"creation  of  relations  which  will  render 
possible  in  time  of  need  the  immediate 
concentration  and  utilization  of  the  re- 
sources of  the  nation." 

Q. — Was  there  any  addition  to  it? 

A. — Yes.  The  act  establishing  it  pro- 
vided for  an  Advisory  Commission  to  be 
nominated  by  the  council  and  appointed 
by  the  President  and  for  such  subordinate 
bodies  as  the  council  saw  fit  to  organize 
"for  its  assistance  in  special  investiga- 
tions." The  members  of  the  Advisory 
Commission  were  originally: 

Daniel  Willard,  chairman,  Transporta- 
tion and  Communication ; 

Howard  E.  Coffin,  Munitions  and  Manu- 
facturing (including  standardization)  and 
Industrial  Relations ; 

Julius  Rosenwald,  Supplies  (including 
clothing),  etc.; 

Bernard  M.  Baruch,  Raw  Materials, 
Minerals,  and  Metals ; 

Dr.  Hollis  Godfrey,  Engineering  and 
Education ; 

Samuel  Gompers,  Labor,  including  con- 
servation of  health  and  welfare  of  work- 
ers; 

Dr.  Franklin  Martin,  Medicine  and 
Surgery,  including  general  sanitation. 

Much  of  the  advisory  committee's  work 
has  been  absorbed  by  other  newer  bodies 
such  as  the  War  Industries  Board,  etc. 

Q. — Who    purchases    supplies    for 
the  United  States  Navy? 

A. — The  Bureau  of  Supplies  and  Ac- 
counts purchases  stores  and  issues  all  sup- 
plies for  the  naval  establishment.  Pay- 
master-General Samuel  McGowan  is  the 
head  of  this  Bureau. 

Q. — Was  January,  1918,  really  the 
coldest  month  on  record? 

A. — It  was  for  a  great  many  regions  in 
the  United  States.  It  was  the  coldest 
month  on  record  for  such  cities  as  New 
York,  for  instance,  where  the  daily  aver- 
age was  9  degrees  below  the  average  for 
38  previous  years. 

Q. — Is     America     rebuilding     the 
ruined  French  towns? 

A. — In  the  Alsace  district  the  Ameri- 
cans are  assisting  notably.  Noyon  has 
been  adopted  by  the  city  of  Washington, 
and  is  being  rebuilt  by  contributions  from 
the  people  of  that  city.  The  American 
fund  for  French  wounded  has  taken  full 


charge  of  the  hamlet  of  Behericourt,  and 
the  Comtesse  de  Chabrannes  has  under- 
taken to  rebuild  the  hamlet  of  Maucourt. 
The  village  of  Vitrimont  in  the  Vosges 
region  has  been  rebuilt  by  Mrs.  Crocker, 
of  California.  The  place  was  a  desert 
when  she  began,  but  her  representative 
found  herself  at  the  head  of  a  small  army 
of  eager  villagers,  who  undertook  the 
heaviest  tasks  of  house-building  under 
her  leadership.  Already  a  church  and 
rows  of  attractive  two-story  houses  have 
risen.  Houses,  farms,  public  buildings 
are  all  erected  according  to  a  plan  which 
gives  them  a  logical  grouping. 

Q. — Did  the  stock  markets  rise  in 
the  early  part  of  1918  because 
of  peace  rumors? 

A. — There  were  many  minor  causes 
that  served  to  account  for  advance  in 
market  quotations,  but  presumably  these 
minor  causes  would  not  have  been  suffi- 
cient in  themselves.  While  it  is  not  safe 
to  assert  unequivocally  that  the  January 
rise  in  prices  was  a  reflection  of  belief 
that  peace  was  prognosticated,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  with  the  beginning  of  actual 
talk  about  a  possible  settlement  of  the 
great  war,  a  quiet,  steady,  slow  advance 
began  in  prices,  and  that  it  continued 
daily  with  very  few  fluctuations. 

Q. — Why  is  America  nicknamed 
Uncle  Sam? 

A. — After  the  declaration  of  war  with 
England  in  1812,  Elbert  Anderson  of  New 
York,  a  contractor,  visited  Troy,  where 
he  purchased  a  large  quantity  of  provi- 
sions. The  government  inspectors  at 
that  place  were  Ebenezer  and  Samuel 
Wilson.  The  latter  was  universally 
known  as  "Uncle  Sam"  and  the  articles 
passed  by  him  were  marked  "E.  A. — 
U.  S."  A  humorous  fellow,  being  asked 
the  meaning  of  the  initials,  said  he  did 
not  know,  unless  it  meant  "Elbert  Ander- 
son and  Uncle  Sam,"  alluding  to  "Uncle 
Sam"  Wilson.  The  joke  became  a  stock 
topic  and  thus  "Uncle  Sam"  was  finally 
adopted  as  a  nickname.  It  is,  accurately 
speaking,  a  nickname  for  the  United 
States  Government,  not  for  the  nation. 

Q. — Does  America  intern  alien  ene- 
mies? 

A. — America  has  adopted  a  magnani- 
mous and  tolerant  attitude  toward  the 
subjects  of  hostile  States  who  are  now 
in  this  country.  A  Presidential  proclama- 
tion issued  April  6,  1917,  assured  them 


294 


Questions  and  Answers 


that  as  long  as  they  refrain  from  acts  of 
hostility  they  would  be  left  undisturbed. 

This  attitude  has  been  maintained. 
During  the  months  following  the  declara- 
tion of  war,  alien  enemies  (or,  to  speak 
more  accurately,  enemy  aliens)  were  pro- 
hibited from  entering  certain  districts, 
such  as  water-fronts,  camps,  etc.  A  num- 
ber, guilty  of  inimical  acts  or  suspected 
as  being  potentially  dangerous,  were  in- 
terned. In  February,  1918,  there  began 
a  general  registration  of  enemy  aliens, 
with  finger-print  records,  etc. 

Q. — Has  America  the  right  to  in- 
tern all  enemy  aliens,  even  if 
they  behave  themselves? 

A. — Yes.  Every  country  engaged  in 
war  has  the  right  to  imprison  all  sub- 
jects of  the  hostile  country,  if  it  chooses 
to  do  so.  They  may  even  be  put  to  work 
under  conditions  prescribed  by  The  Hague 
Conventions.  The  treatment  of  enemy 
aliens  in  any  belligerent  country  is  simply 
a  matter  of  policy. 

Q. — Is  it  permitted  for  a  belligerent 
to  purchase  weapons  of  war 
from  neutrals  without  let  or 
hindrance? 

A. — The  laws  of  neutrality  permit  this 
to  be  done  without  any  interference  on 
the  part  of  neutral  Governments.  French 
agents  bought  revolvers,  etc.,  in  Great 
Britain  during  the  Franco-German  war, 
and  the  British  Government  answered  the 
German  protests  with  the  statement  that 
no  purely  mercantile  transactions  could 
be  considered  a  violation  of  neutrality. 
The  Allies  purchased  huge  quantities  of 
war  material  from  the  United  States,  and 
in  reply  to  Austria's  protests  President 
Wilson  took  the  same  point  of  view  as  did 
the  British  Government  during  the 
Franco-Prussian  war. 

Q. — Is  German  taught  in  all  the 
public  schools  throughout  the 
United  States? 

A. — According  to  statistics  compiled 
late  in  1917  by  the  Bureau  of  Education 
of  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  after 
inquiries  had  been  sent  to  the  superin- 
tendents of  many  of  the  elementary 
schools  in  the  United  States,  there  are 
only  nineteen  cities  out  of  163  of  25,000 


population  or  over  reporting  to  the  De- 
partment of  Education  that  teach  foreign 
languages  below  the  seventh  grade. 

Q. — What  proportion  does  German 
bear  in  relation  to  other  foreign 
languages? 

A. — In  twelve  of  these  cities  German 
is  the  foreign  language  taught.  In  three 
cities  German,  French,  and  Spanish  are 
all  taught  in  the  elementary  grades.  In 
one  city  German,  Italian,  and  Polish, 
•while  in  the  three  remaining  cities  the 
languages  taught  to  the  elementary 
school  children  are  French  and  Spanish, 
alone  or  in  combination.  In  a  few  cities 
the  foreign  language  is  taught  in  all 
grades,  from  the  first  to  the  eighth;  in 
others  the  instruction  does  not  begin  until 
the  fifth  or  sixth  grade.  The  number  of 
elementary  school  children  taking  German 
ranges  from  40  in  one  city  to  22,000  in 
another. 

Q. — What  is  Pan- Americanism? 

A.— For  a  long  time  there  has  been 
manifested  a  stronger  and  stronger  feel- 
ing that  the  American  republics  consti- 
tute a  group  which  is  more  closely  bound 
together  than  other  nations  of  the  world, 
because  of  their  common  ideals  and  com- 
mon aspirations — a  feeling  which  has  un- 
doubtedly been  emphasized  by  their  geo- 
graphical isolation  from  other  countries. 
It  is  the  bond  of  sympathy  which  draws 
together  the  twenty-one  republics  of  our 
western  world  and  makes  of  them  the 
American  family  of  nations. 

Q. — Did  the  Government  send 
money  to  Americans  caught  in 
the  warring  countries? 

A. — Yes.  The  battleship  Tennessee 
went  in  August,  1914,  with  $2,500,000  in 
gold  for  the  relief  of  American  citizens 
in  Europe.  This  money  was  distributed 
through  the  American  legations. 

Q. — Has  our  Government  an  au- 
thorized censorship? 

A. — Yes.  The  Trading  with  the  Enemy 
Bill,  passed  September  12,  1917,  includes 
a  provision  for  censorship  of  mail  and 
telegraphic  communications  with  foreign 
countries.  Also,  it  has  an  amendment 
requiring  German-language  newspapers 
to  publish  an  English  translation  of  all 
comment  on  the  war. 


SOME  PAST  CAMPAIGNS 


Q.— When  was  the  battle  of  Water- 
loo fought? 

A. — It  was  fought  on  Sunday,  June  18, 
1815,  between  Napoleon,  with  72,000  men 
(246  guns),  and  Wellington,  with  67,700 
Allies  (156  guns).  The  day  was  de- 
cided by  the  arrival  of  Bliicher  with  50,- 
ooo  Prussians  (104  guns).  There  were 
in  all  only  24,000  British  on  the  field. 

Q.— Where  is  Waterloo? 

A. — It  is  about  10  miles  south  by  east 
from  Brussels.  Waterloo  is  a  very  small 
and  unimportant  place  in  itself,  with  only 
about  3,000  inhabitants. 

Q. — Was  there  a  battle  of  Water- 
loo in  the  present  war? 

A. — No.  It  was  not  a  strategic  point. 
Napoleon  and  Wellington  fought  their 
battle  there  only  because  the  British  army 
had  concentrated  on  Brussels.  In  the 
present  war,  no  stand  was  made  near 
Brussels  and  the  Germans  entered  unop- 
posed. 

Q. — What  were  the  losses  in  the 
battle  of  Waterloo? 

A. — The  British,  who  only  numbered 
24,000,  lost  2,000  killed  and  5,000  wounded. 
The  Allies  lost  altogether,  including 
these,  4,200  killed,  14,500  wounded,  and 
4,230  missing.  The  French  loss  was  more 
than  40,000  killed,  wounded  and  prison- 
ers, but  accurate  details  have  never  been 
obtained. 

Q. — How    old    was    Napoleon    at 
Waterloo? 

A. — He  was  only  46.  Wellington  was 
the  same  age;  so  were  Ney  and  Soult. 
Grouchy  was  49,  Murat  44.  Nelson  died 
at  47.  All  these  men  had  achieved  their 
greatest  fame  before  they  reached  40. 
Alexander  the  Great  died  when  he  was 
33.  Hannibal  was  30  when  he  crossed 
the  Alps.  Sir  Francis  Drake,  with  a  great 
career  behind  him,  was  48  when  he  met 
the  Armada. 

Q.— Who  said  that  "God  is  on  the 
side  of  the  biggest  battalions"? 


alter  both  these  trite  remarks,  and,  in- 
stead, would  say  that  "God  is  on  the 
side  of  the  biggest  factories,"  and  that 
an  army  "marches  on  petrol." 

Q. — Has    war    ever    produced    so 
much  hatred  as  this  one? 

A. — Much  the  same  sort  of  comment 
about  enemies  has  been  made  by  pub- 
licists in  time  past  as  is  appearing  to- 
day. The  following  quotation  from 
Thackeray's  work,  "The  Four  Georges," 
gives  some  idea  of  how  belligerent  na- 
tions wrote  and  spoke  during  the  Napol- 
eonic wars.  He  says: 

"We  prided  ourselves  on  our  preju- 
dices ;  we  blustered  and  bragged  with  ab- 
surd vainglory;  we  dealt  to  our  enemy  a 
monstrous  injustice  of  contempt  and 
scorn ;  we  fought  him  with  all  weapons, 
mean  as  well  as  heroic.  There  was  no 
lie  we  would  not  believe ;  no  charge  of 
crime  which  our  furious  prejudice  would 
not  credit.  I  thought  at  one  time  of  mak- 
ing a  collection  of  the  lies  which  the 
French  had  written  against  us,  and  we 
had  published  against  them,  during  the 
war.  It  would  be  a  strange  memorial  of 
popular  falsehood." 

Q. — Who  were  the  Huns? 

A. — They  were  a  people  of  Tartar  or 
Ugrain  stock,  who,  three  centuries  be- 
fore Christ,  appear  to  have  dominated  the 
whole  of  what  is  now  known  as  Siberia. 
They  first  appeared  west  of  the  Volga  in 
374,  and  proceeded  to  attack  the  then  all- 
powerful  Gothic  Empire.  They  were  soon 
supreme  between  the  Danube  and  the 
Volga,  and  expanded  through  into  Persia 
and  Syria.  In  446  the  mighty  "Scourge 
of  God,"  Attila,  began  his  tremendous 
drive  to  the  west.  Civilization  collapsed 
before  his  onslaught,  and  five  years  later 
he  was  outside  Paris.  There,  at  the  tre- 
mendous battle  of  Chalons-sur-Marne,  the 
combined  armies  of  the  Romans,  under 
Aetius,  and  the  Visigoths,  under  Theodo- 
ric,  defeated  him  and  saved  France. 

Q. — Why  are  the  Germans  called 
Huns? 

A. — It  is  a  term  of  opprobrium,  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  their  race,  for  the 
Germans  are  of  entirely  different  stock. 


A. — Napoleon.    It  was  he  also  who  said      The  cruelties  and  barbarisms  of  the  Huns, 


that    an    army    "marched    on    its    belly. 
Nowadays  he   would,  no   doubt,   slightly 


combined   with   their   great  bravery   and 
ferocity,    gave    a   terror   to   tKeir   name, 


295 


296 


Questions  and  Answers 


which  has  lasted  to  this  day.  A  few  of 
them  are  said  to  have  settled  in  northern 
France,  and  a  few  in  Central  Europe. 
They  gave  their  name  to  Hungary,  which 
is,  however,  now  peopled  by  a  different 
race.  They  were  slowly  assimilated  by 
the  peoples  around  them,  or  retired  across 
the  Volga,  whence  they  came. 

Q. — Which  are  regarded  as  the 
greatest  battles  of  the  world? 

A. — According  to  Creasy,  there  were 
fifteen  "decisive"  battles — that  is,  battles 
which  decided  the  fate  of  nations  and  per- 
haps of  the  world.  The  early  ones  were: 
Marathon,  where  the  Greeks  defeated  the 
Persians,  B.C.  490,  and  stopped  the  Asiatic 
invasion.  Syracuse,  where,  B.C.  413,  the 
Athenian  invaders  of  Sicily  were  routed. 
Arbela,  where  Alexander  the  Great  fi- 
nally crushed  the  Persians,  B.C.  331.  Me- 
taurus,  where  the  Romans  defeated  Has- 
drubal,  who  ^ was  hastening  to  the  aid  of 
the  Carthaginians  under  Hannibal,  B.C. 
207.  (As  a  military  achievement,  Han- 
nibal's victory  over  the  Romans  at  Can- 
nae was  much  greater,  but  the  victory  at 
Metaurus  was  the  beginning  of  the  end 
of  Carthage.)  Teutoburg,  where,  in  A.D. 
9,  the  German  Arminius  defeated  the  Ro- 
man legions  under  Varus,  and  freed  Ger- 
many from  the  Roman  yoke. 

Q. — Was  one  of  the  decisive  fam- 
ous battles  fought  in  Chalons, 
France? 

A. — Chalons,  where  the  last  of  the  Ro- 
man generals,  Aetius,  and  Theodoric, 
King  of  the  Visigoths,  defeated  the 
Huns  under  Attila,  "The  Scourge  of 
God,"  A.D.  451.  After  Chalons,  the  Hun- 
nish  invasion  ebbed,  and  Attila's  vast  em- 
pire crumbled  away  after  his  death,  two 
years  later.  Then  came  another  great 
battle  in  France,  the  battle  of  Tours, 
where  Charles  Martel,  Duke  of  the  Aus- 
trasian  Franks,  defeated  the  Saracens  un- 
der Abderrahman,  in  732,  and  freed 
France  and  Europe  from  Moslem  domi- 
nation. After  these  came  Hastings,  where 
Norman  William  defeated  Saxon  Harold, 
in  1066,  and  laid  the  foundations  for  the 
present  British  Empire,  and  Orleans, 
where  in  1429  Jeanne  d'Arc  defeated  the 
English  and  delivered  France. 

Q. — What  was  the  greatest  sea 
battle? 

A. — The  fight  with  the  Spanish  Ar- 
mada, which,  in  1588,  was  destroyed  by 
the  British  fleet.  Spain's  dominion  of 


the  sea  was  broken,  and  after  that  h«r 
mighty  empire  began  to  crumble. 

Q. — What  were  the  other  battles? 

A. — Blenheim,  where,  in  1704,  Marl- 
borough,  commanding  German,  British 
and  Dutch  troops,  defeated  the  French 
and  thus  destroyed  the  vast  fabric  of 
power  built  up  by  Louis  XIV.  It  is  in- 
teresting to  recall  that  the  Irish  Brigade, 
fighting  for  the  French,  almost  turned  de- 
feat into  victory.  Pultowa,  where  Peter 
the  Great  defeated  Charles  of  Sweden  in 
1709.  This  victory  marked  the  entry  of 
Russia  into  history  as  a  European  power, 
and  with  it  began  the  decline  of  Sweden. 
It  also  marked  the  beginning  of  rivalry 
between  Slav  and  Teuton,  one  of  the 
deeper  excuses  for  the  world-devastating 
struggle  of  our  day.  Saratoga,  where,  in 
1777,  the  Americans,  under  Gates  and  Ar- 
nold, defeated  the  British  under  Bur- 
goyne  and  captured  his  army.  Though 
few  men  were  engaged,  the  victory  was 
immediately  important.  Valmy,  where  the 
armies  of  the  French  Republic  won  their 
first  victory  in  1792.  The  battle  saved 
Paris  and  the  French  democracy.  Water- 
loo, where,  in  1815,  the  British,  Dutch, 
Brunswickers  and  Belgians,  under  Wel- 
lington, and  the  Prussians,  under  Bliicher, 
defeated  Napoleon,  and  completed  the 
destruction  of  the  mighty  empire  he  had 
built  up.  At  that  time  a  von  Bulow,  by 
the  way,  commanded  one  of  the  Prussian 
army  corps. 

Q. — How  do  numbers   of  ancient 
armies  compare  with  to-day? 

A. — There  is  no  comparison  at  all. 
Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  world 
had  armies  so  been  used.  The  largest 
armies  of  modern  times  before  this  war 
were  the  American  armies  of  the  Civil 
War.  When  the  Civil  War  ended  there 
were  2,000,000  Northerners  and  1,000,000 
Southerners  under  arms.  In  the  Franco- 
Prussian  War  the  Germans  had  1,124,000 
soldiers,  the  French  1,000,000.  At  Water- 
loo, Napoleon  had  72,000  men,  Welling- 
ton 67,700,  and  Bliicher  50,000.  Napol- 
eon's Grande  Armee,  which  invaded  Rus- 
sia, crossed  the  border  600,000  strong. 
Only  20,000  men  returned.  In  ancient 
times  Hannibal  invaded  Italy  with  60,000 
men.  Alexander  the  Great  conquered  the 
known  world  with  50,000.  Charles  Mar- 
tel smashed  the  Saracens  and  saved 
France  from  Mohammedan  domination 
with  an  army  of  20,000.  The  Turks  were 
defeated  by  the  brilliant  Pole,  Pan  So- 
bieski,  before  the  gates  of  Vienna,  in 
1683,  Europe  on  that  occasion  being  saved 


Some  Past  Campaigns  297 

by  an  army  70,000  strong.  At  Marathon  only  12  artillerymen  and  gunners  in  the 
the  Greeks  numbered  at  most  10,000,  the  ordnance  establishment  of  the  King.  At 
Persians  100,000.  At  Pultowa  there  were  the  siege  of  Harfleur,  1415  guns  were 
12,000  Swedes  and  12,000  Cossacks  against  used  by  Henry  V,  but  in  those  days  can- 
60000  Russians.  non  were  confined  almost  exclusively  to 

siege  operations.  It  was  not  until  the 
Q.—  When  was  gunpowder  first  Hussite  Wars  1419-25,.  that  field  guns 

were  used   with  effect  m  open   warfare. 


Field  guns  were  also  used  in  the  Wars  of 
A.  —  So  far  as  is  known,  cannon  were  the  Roses.  The  Turks  proved  them- 
first  employed  by  the  Germans  at  the  siege  selves  very  formidable  in  the  use  of 
of  Oividale  in  Italy  in  1331.  Edward  siege  artillery,  and  utilized  great  num- 
III  used  artillery  at  the  battle  of  Crecy  bers  of  guns  in  the  siege  of  Constanti- 
in  1346,  but  it  is  recorded  that  there  were  nople,  in  1453. 


THE  RED  CROSS  OF  MERCY 


Q. — Just  what  is  the  Red  Cross? 

A. — The  American  Red  Cross  is  an  as- 
sociation of  more  than  3,600,000  Ameri- 
cans, forming  local  chapters,  branches, 
and  auxiliaries  and  governed  by  a  central 
committee  in  Washington,  D.  C.  Its  ac- 
counts are  audited  by  the  War  Depart- 
ment. Any  resident  or  citizen  of  the 
United  States  may  become  a  member  by 
sending  his  address,  and  dues  to  the 
American  Red  Cross,  Washington,  D.  C, 
or  to  the  chapter  in  his  neighborhood.  It 
is  a  relief  clearing  house,  permanent,  re- 
sponsible, and  experienced.  It  is  a  semi- 
governmental  agency  for  the  collection 
and  distribution  of  money  and  supplies 
for  relief  purposes. 

Q. — What  did  the  American  Red 
Cross  do  with  the  money  it 
collected? 

A. — On  February  3,  1918,  the  Red  Cross 
War  Council  published  a  statement  in 
Washington  showing  that  up  to  January 
9,  1918,  there  had  been  appropriated  a 
total  of  $44,657,795.99  for  foreign  relief, 
$2,612,532.60  for  United  States  relief,  and 
$24,323,181.12  for  supplies  either  for  for- 
eign shipment  or  for  distribution  or  re- 
sale to  chapters  in  this  country. 

This  latter  item  included  $7,063,649.12, 
which  was  also  included  in  the  $30,519,- 
259.60  for  work  in  France,  as  well  as 
$11,288,417  for  material  for  resale  to 
chapters.  It  was  thus  to  be  considered  as 
a  working  fund  and  as  a  liquid  asset 
rather  than  an  expenditure.  All  appro- 
priations from  the  Red  Cross  War  Fund 
up  to  Jan.  9,  1918,  amounted  to  $77,843,- 
435.25.  Including  appropriations  from 
the  general  fund  and  the  miscellaneous 
fund,  the  total  appropriations  were  $79,- 
450,727.35- 

Q. — How  much  of  the  money  went 
for  expenses? 

A. — The  total  appropriation  for  admin- 
istration at  National  Headquarters  and  at 
division  headquarters  amounted  ^  to  $i,- 
289,292  during  six  months.  This  included 
$365,000  for  divisional  administration  ex- 
penses and  $250,000  donated  for  telegraph 
and  cable  service  by  the  Western  Union 
Telegraph  Company. 

These  appropriations  did  not  come  out 
of  the  War  Fund.  They  were  more  than 
covered  from  the  portion  of  membership 
dues  received  at  National  Headquarters. 


In  other  words,  no  expenses  of  admin- 
istration in  the  United  States  were  paid 
for  out  of  the  Red  Cross  War  Fund. 
All  administration  was  more  than  met  by 
membership  dues.  Thus,  every  dollar 
contributed  for  relief  went  to  relief. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  many  very  high 
salaries  are  paid  by  the  Red 
Cross? 

A. — The  average  salary  paid  at  the 
National  Red  Cross  Headquarters  is  less 
than  $65  a  month.  The  average  salary  of 
Government  departments  at  Washington 
from  secretary  to  janitors  is  more  than 
$110  a  month.  The  Red  Cross  Division 
managers,  as  well  as  many  of  their  as- 
sistants, are  volunteers,  but  it  is  necessary 
to  employ  on  salaries  stenographers  and 
other  clerical  help.  The  same  is  true  at 
National  Headquarters,  where  there  are 
more  than  75  volunteers,  whose  salaries 
at  the  figures  these  men  are  accustomed 
to  receive  would  increase  the  pay-roll 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  annu- 
ally. Appreciating  the  necessity  of  hav- 
ing the  best  possible  administration  of 
Red  Cross  affairs,  the  Red  Cross,  in  one 
case,  pays  $5,000,  in  another,  $6,000,  and 
in  a  third,  $7,500. 

Q. — How  was  the  money  for  for- 
eign relief  apportioned? 

France   $30,519,259.60 

Belgium   1,999,631.00 

Russia    751,940.87 

Roumania  2,617,398.76 

Italy   3,146,016.00 

Serbia . 871,180.76 

Great  Britain 1,703,642.00 

Other   foreign  countries....  2,536,300.00 

For  prisoners,  etc 343,627.00 

Equipment   and   expenses...  68,800.00 


Total  foreign  relief $441657,795.99 

Q.-— What  was  the  "United  States 
relief"? 

United  States — 

Army  base  hospitals $54,000.00 

Navy  base  hospitals 32,000.00 

Medical  and  hospital  work  503,000.00 

Sanitary  service  364,500.00 

Camp  service  906,715.00 

Miscellaneous    662,317.60 


Total  U.  S.  relief $2,612,532.60 


298 


The  Red  Cross  of  Mercy 


299 


Q.— -What  did  the  Red  Cross  do 
for  France? 

A. — On  January  27,  1918,  the  American 
Red  Cross  announced  that  the  total 
amount  of  money  appropriated  for  relief 
work  1n  France  from  the  date  of  the 
American  declaration  of  war  was  $30,- 
519,259.  Additional  appropriations  of 
$7,063,649  had  been  made  to  purchase 
supplies  to  go  to  France. 

A  little  more  than  14  millions  of  these 
sums  was  for  military  relief,  9l/2  millions 
for  civilian  relief  and  the  rest  for  vari- 
ous bureaus  and  expenses.  This  sum  is 
the  largest  ever  expended  by  one  nation 
for  relief  activities  in  another. 

Q. — How  does  the  Red  Cross  spend 
the  money  specifically? 

A. — The  public's  money  given  to  the 
Red  Cross  is  being  spent  in  France  and 
other  countries  in  the  war  for  such  pur- 
poses as  the  following:  infirmaries  and 
rest  stations  for  the  sick;  disinfecting 
rooms  and  dormitories  for  the  soldiers ; 
for  hospital  equipment,  medicines  and 
dressings  (nearly  4,000  of  the  6,000  hos- 
pitals in  France  are  now  receiving  sup- 
plies from  the  American  Red  Cross)  ;  for 
food  for  the  sick  and  needy;  for  ambu- 
lances for  the  wounded ;  for  motor  trucks 
which  make  the  American  Red  Cross  in- 
dependent of  the  overburdened  railways 
in  France ;  for  medical  research ;  for  the 
building  of  homes  and  schools  for  or- 
phans and  the  helpless ;  for  the  relief  of 
destitute  families ;  to  fight  tuberculosis, 
the  deadliest  enemy  of  the  civil  popula- 
tion of  France;  for  general  relief  work 
in  Belgium,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Q. — What  was  the  ambulance  ser- 
vice under  the  American  Red 
Cross  in  France? 

A. — Eliot  Norton,  director  in  America 
of  the  Harjes-Norton  (American  Red 
Cross)  Ambulances  in  France,  makes  the 
following  statement : 

"When  the  American  Army  took  over, 
in  August,  1917,  the  ambulances  which 
had  been  operated  in  France  by  the  Amej- 
ican  Red  Cross  and  which  were  popu- 
larly known  as  the  Harjes-Norton  Sec- 
tions, there  were  648  men  in  this  service. 
Of  these,  210  were  over  or  under  mili- 
tary age,  or  otherwise  exempt  from  mili- 
tary service.  This  left  438.  Of  these, 


283,  or  65  per  cent,  are  known  to  have 
enlisted,  without  waiting  to  be  drafted,  in 
one  branch  or  another  of  the  army,  by 
November  14.  Since  then  at  least  another 
15  per  cent  have  done  or  are  in  process 
of  doing  the  same  thing — viz.,  enlisting 
without  waiting  to  be  drafted." 

Q. — How  many  American  Red 
Cross  nurses  are  in  active  ser- 
vice? 

A.— More  than  3,000  Red  Cross  nurses 
are  in  active  service,  2,000  abroad,  and 
they  are  volunteering  at  the  rate  of  1,000 
a  month. 

Q. — What  were  some  of  the  big  or- 
ganizations formed  to  help  Eu- 
ropean war-sufferers? 

A. — Apart  from  the  Red  Cross  there 
were:  National  Allied  Relief,  which,  up 
to  1918,  had  collected  more  than  $1,000,- 
ooo;  Belgian  Relief  Fund,  approximately 
$1,100,000  to  1918;  New  York  Committee 
of  the  Fatherless  Children  in  France, 
$329,000;  American  Committee  for  Ar- 
menian and  Syrian  Relief,  more  than  $7,- 
000,000;  Franco-Serbian  Hospital;  Amer- 
ican Military  Hospital  in  Paris ;  Cardinal 
Mercier  Fund  (for  the  destitute  in  Bel- 
gium) ;  Polish  Fund;  Lafayette  Fund; 
Commttee  of  Mercy;  American  Girls'  Aid 
(to  clothe  French  sufferers) ;  French 
Tuberculosis  War  Victims'  Fund;  Chari- 
tee  Maternelle  de  Paris;  Duryea  War 
Relief;  War  Babies'  Cradle;  Emergency 
Italian  Refugee  Committee;  Comforts 
Committee  of  Christian  Scientists ;  Amer- 
ican Committee  for  Training  Maimed ' 
Soldiers  of  France;  the  Secours  National 
Fund  (for  women  and  children  of 
France). 

Q. — What  branches  are  open  for 
volunteer  war  work? 

Voluntary  Marine  Corps  Reserve. 
Voluntary  Naval  Reserve. 
Serve  without  retainer  pay  and  with- 
out uniform  gratuity. 
All  forms  of  Red  Cross  work. 
Reconstruction  work  in  France. 
"Y.  M.  C.  A."  work. 
All  "Labor  Reserve"  work. 
Certain   positions   in   the   "Belgian   Re- 
lief Committee's"  work. 
If  you  are  qualified,  all  war  work. 


WHO'S  WHO  IN  ROYALTY 


Q. — Is  Belgium's  king  the  son  of 
Leopold? 

A.— Albert  I  (born  1875),  King  of  the 
Belgians,  came  to  the  throne  December 
23,  1909,  in  succession  to  his  uncle,  Leo- 
pold II.  Becoming  heir  apparent  at  the 
age  of  17  by  the  death  of  his  elder 
brother,  he  passed  through  the  educational 
steps  regularly  marked  out  for  Belgian 
royalty — the  military  school,  extensive 
travels,  participation  as  member  of  the 
Senate  in  national  politics. 

Q. — How    long    has    the    Kaiser 
ruled? 

A— William  (Wilhelm)  II,  King  of 
Prussia  and  German  Emperor,  has  ruled 
since  June  18,  1888.  William  IPs  grand- 
father, William  I,  achieved  German  unity, 
established  the  German  Empire,  and 
greatly  influenced  the  ideals  of  his  grand- 
son. William  II's  mother  was  the  eldest 
daughter  of  Queen  Victoria  of  England. 
At  his  accession  he  declared  to  the  army: 
"So  we  are  bound  together — I  and  the 
army — so  we  are  born  for  one  another, 
and  so  we  shall  hold  together  indissolu- 
bly,  whether,  as  God  wills  it,  we  are  to 
have  peace  or  storm."  After  forcing  Bis- 
marck's resignation  on  March  18,  1890, 
William  II  telegraphed  to  the  Grand  Duke 
of  Weimar:  "To  me  has  fallen  the  post 
of  officer  of  the  watch  upon  the  ship  of 
state.  We  shall  keep  the  old  course ;  and 
now  full  steam  ahead !"  Endowed  with 
an  active  mind  and  extraordinary  energy, 
he  sought  to  lead  the  way  in  political, 
social,  and  economic  matters,  to  furnish 
the  inspiration  in  literature,  art,  and 
science,  and  to  develop  the  intensely  mod- 
ern materialistic  Germany,  with  its  over- 
whelming discipline,  its  progressive  effi- 
ciency, and  its  expanding  power  beyond 
the  seas. 

Q. — How  old  is  he? 

A. — He  was  born  Jan.  27,  1859,  and 
became  Emperor  June  15,  1888. 

Q. — Are  the  Hohenzollerns  an  an- 
cient dynasty? 

A.— Very  old,  although  it  was  not  until 
1701  that  one  of  the  family  became  King 
of  Prussia.  The  castle  of  Hohenzollern 
is  said  to  have  been  built  early  in  the 
ninth  century,  but  the  first  historical  men- 


tion of  the  family  was  when  Burkhard 
and  Wezil,  counts  of  Zollern,  were  killed 
in  1061.  A  direct  descendant  of  Burk- 
hard became  Burgrave  of  Nuremburg  in 
1192.  The  divison  of  the  House  of 
Hohenzollern  dates  from  the  sons  of  this 
Conrad,  who  divided  his  lands  between 
them.  The  present  Emperor  of  Germany 
belongs  to  the  younger  branch,  the  King 
of  Roumania  to  the  elder.  On  the  whole, 
the  Burgraves  of  Nuremburg  were  good 
rulers,  although  they  took  their  full  share 
in  the  turbulent  doings  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  They  appear  to  have  encouraged 
commerce  and  protected  the  Jews.  Hay- 
ing inherited  Brandenburg,  Frederic  in 
1427  sold  his  right  as  Burgrave  to  the 
town  of  Nuremburg,  and  from  that  time 
the  family  of  Hohenzollern  is  identical 
with  that  of  Brandenburg,  until  1701, 
when  the  Elector  Frederick  became  King 
of  Prussia. 

Q.— Is  it  true  that  Emperor  Wil- 
liam II  was  appointed  Admiral 
of  the  English  fleet? 

A. — Yes.  On  August  5,  1889,  he  was 
created  Admiral  of  the  English  fleet  by 
Queen  Victoria. 

Q. — How  many  sisters  has  the  Kai- 
ser, and  to  whom  are  they  mar- 
ried? 

A. — He  has  four  sisters.  The  two  eld- 
est and  the  youngest  are  married  to  Ger- 
man princes.  The  third,  Sophie,  is  the 
wife  of  King  Constantine  of  Greece.  He 
has  only  one  brother,  Prince  Heinrich. 
The  Kaiser  has  six  sons  and  one  daugh- 
ter, who  recently  married  the  Duke  of 
Brunswick. 

Q. — When  did  George  V  ascend 
the  throne? 

A. — George  V  (born  1865),  the  present 
King  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  and  the 
British  lands  beyond  the  seas,  came  to  the 
throne  at  the  death  of  his  father,  Ed- 
ward VII,  in  1910. 

Q. — What  was  the  family  name  of 
King  George  V  before  he 
changed  it  to  Windsor? 

A. — King  George  I  was  a  Guelph,  and 
as  his  dynasty  still  reigns  in  England  King 
George  V  presumably  is  held  to  be  a 


300 


IVho's  Who  in  Royalty 


301 


Guelph  also.  The  descent,  however,  came 
through  the  female  line — Queen  Victoria 
— whose  husband,  Prince  Albert,  was  a 
member  of  the  Wettin  family,  from  which 
many  of  the  Royal  Houses  of  Europe 
have  sprung.  Had  he  not  been  of  royal 
blood,  King  George  V  would  be  regarded 
therefore  as  a  Wettin,  not  as  a  Guelph. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  name 
Guelph  was  associated  more  particularly 
with  Italy  than  with  Germany,  and  for 
centuries  the  feud  between  this  house  and 
the  Ghibellines  raged  throughout  northern 
Italy.  In  fact,  Guelph  is  held  to  be  the 
Italianized  form  of  Welf,  and  Ghibelline 
is  the  Italian  name  for  Waiblingen.  The 
feud  is  said  to  have  originated  in  1140 
in  a  war  between  Conrad  III,  King  of 
Germany,  and  Welf,  Count  of  Bavaria, 
whose  soldiers  used  the  battle-cry,  "Hie 
Welf."  To  this  the  King's  men  replied 
with  the  shout  of  "Hie  Waiblingen,"  one 
of  the  titles  of  Conrad,  who  resided  at  a 
castle  of  that  name. 

Q. — How  did  the  present  Aus- 
trian Emperor  succeed  to  the 
throne  ? 

A.— The  Archduke  Charles  Francis 
Joseph  became  Charles  I,  Emperor  of 
Austria  and  King  of  Hungary,  on  the 
death  of  his  great-uncle,  Emperor  Francis 
Joseph,  on  November  21,  1916.  He  is  the 
eldest  son  of  the  late  Emperor's  nephew, 
Otto,  the  younger  brother  of  the  Arch- 
duke Francis  Ferdinand,  murdered  at 
Serajevo  on  June  28,  1914.  Charles  I 
married,  in  1911,  Princess  Zita,  of  the 
Bourbon  House  of  Parma,  and  has  two 
sons.  He  received  a  democratic  education 
in  the  public  schools  of  Vienna,  which 
shocked  sticklers  at  etiquette  of  the 
Viennese  Court,  but  which  has  secured 
him  much  popularity  with  his  subjects. 
It  also  appears  to  have  impressed  upon 
his  mind  the  importance  of  constitutional 
government  and  democratic  reforms  for 
Austria.  His  first  public  utterance  as 
Emperor  made  a  very  favorable  impres- 
sion in  the  constitutional  countries  of 
Europe  by  his  apparent  sincerity  and  by 
his  expressed  determinaton  to  observe 
the  forms  of  constitutional  rule. 

Q. — Is  Roumania's  king  a  Hohen- 
zollern? 

A. — Ferdinand  I  (born  1865),  who  be- 
came King  of  Roumania  in  succession  to 
his  uncle  Charles  I  on  October  n,  1914, 
is  a  member  of  the  Catholic  branch  of  the 
German  Hohenzollerns. 


Q. — What  race  is  King  Peter? 

A. — Peter  I  (born  1844),  King  of  Ser- 
bia since  June  15,  1903,  is  a  member  of 
the  Karageorgevitch  family.  He  ascend- 
ed the  throne  as  the  result  of  a  palace 
revolution,  in  which  the  rival  dynasty, 
the  Obrenovich,  was  exterminated.  Ow- 
ing to  his  feeble  health  in  recent  years, 
King  Peter  has  practically  abdicated,  and 
the  Crown  Prince  Alexander  has  acted  as 
regent. 

Q. — Is  Constantine  still  a  king? 

A. — No.  He  abdicated.  Constantine  I 
(born  1868)  married  Sophia,  sister  of  the 
German  Emperor,  and,  partly  because  of 
her  influence,  attempted  to  manipulate 
Greek  policy  in  the  interest  of  Germany. 
On  June  n,  1917,  he  was  forced  to  abdi- 
cate by  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Russia, 
who  justified  their  action  on  three  facts: 
(i)  Greece  had  been  created  a  kingdom 
in  1830  through  their  intervention ;  (2) 
they  had  placed  the  present  dynasty  on 
the  throne  in  1863 ;  (3)  they  had  guaran- 
teed a  constitutional  government.  The 
new  King,  Alexander,  second  son  of  Con- 
stantine, invited  M.  Venizelos  to  resume 
office  and  consented  to  the  reassembling 
of  the  Parliament,  dissolved  in  1915. 

Q. — When  was  the  ex-Czar  born? 

A. — Nicholas  II  was  born  in  1862.  He 
ascended  the  throne  October  20,  1894,  and 
married  Alexandra,  Princess  of  Hesse, 
the  same  year.  Nicholas  inaugurated  his 
reign  by  a  rigorous  repression  of  all  lib- 
eral movements  and  then  embarked  on  a 
policy  of  adventure  in  the  Far  East,  which 
ended  in  the  war  with  Japan  (1904-5)  and 
the  defeat  of  Russia.  During  the  war 
a  revolutionary  movement  manifested  it- 
self at  home,  which,  culminating  in  the 
general  strike  of  October,  1905,  forced 
the  Czar  to  grant  a  constitution.  But 
Nicholas  distrusted  the  liberals  and  gave 
the  bureaucracy  a  free  hand  in  crushing 
liberal  movements.  At  the  beginning  of 
the  European  war  the  Czar  proclaimed 
the  solidarity  of  throne  and  people,  there- 
by securing  a  considerable  measure  of 
popularity;  but  once  again,  he  relied  too 
exclusively  on  the  bureaucracy,  with  dis- 
astrous results,  for  these  reactionaries 
soon  lost  interest  in  the  war,  and  when 
the  Czar  refused  to  displace  them  he  was 
compelled  by  the  revolutionaries  to  abdi- 
cate, March  15,  1917. 

Q. — Was  Francis  Joseph  a  Haps- 
burg? 

A. — Yes.  Francis  (Franz)  Joseph 
(1830-1916),  late  Emperor  of  Austria  and 


302 


Questions  and  Answers 


King  of  Hungary,  came  to  the  throne  on 
December  2,  1848,  when  the  polyglot  lands 
of  the  Hapsburg  monarchy  were  on  the 
point  of  dissolution.  His  task  during  his 
entire  reign  was  essentially  dynastic,  the 
holding  together  of  his  dominions.  Under 
his  rule  the  Austrian  Provinces  in  Italy, 
except  Trentino  and  Trieste,  were  lost  to 
the  new  Kingdom  of  Italy  (1859-1866) 
and  Austrian  influence  in  Germany  was 
destroyed  by  Prussia  in  the  war  of  1866. 
But  in  his  task  of  holding  together  the 
Austrian  dominions  proper  he  secured  a 
relative  success.  Hungary  was  pacified  by 
the  agreement  of  1867,  which  granted 
autonomy  in  local  matters  and  an  equal 
share  in  the  government  of  the  monarchy. 
Opinions  differ  as  to  the  native  ability  of 
Francis  Joseph,  but  it  would  at  least  ap- 
pear that  long  study  of  men  had  given 
him  great  fitness  in  dealing  with  the  pe- 
culiar problems  of  Austria-Hungary.  His 
private  life  was  a  pilgrimage  of  sorrow. 
His  wife  was  murdered  by  an  anarchist, 
his  son  perished  in  an  obscure  affair,  and 
lastly,  his  nephew  and  heir  was  murdered 
at  Serajevo  in  1914. 

Q. — Is    Bulgaria's    ruler    king    or 
Czar? 

A. — He  is  a  Czar.  Ferdinand  I  (born 
1861)  was  the  younger  son  of  the  Prince 
of  Saxe-Coburg,  and  in  1887  was  elected 
by  the  Bulgarians  to  be  their  prince.  Dur- 
ing the  next  years  his  policy  was  aimed 
at  two  things — (i)  to  promote  the  well- 
being  of  Bulgaria,  and  (2)  to  create  an 
army  strong  enough  to  make  Bulgaria  the 
leading  State  in  the  Balkans.  In  both  of 
these  aims  he  was  highly  successful ;  in 
1912  Bulgaria  was  a  prosperous  State,  and 
in  the  first  Balkan  war  the  Bulgarian 
army  proved  its  worth. 

Q. — Where  was  Queen  Alexandra, 
the  Queen-mother,  born? 

A. — She  was  born  on  September  i,  1844, 
in  Denmark,  being  the  eldest  daughter  of 
King  Christian  IX  of  Denmark.  Her 
brother,  Frederick  VII,  was  King  of  Den- 
mark for  six  years.  The  present  sov- 
ereign, Christian  X,  is  her  nephew.  An- 
other brother  was  King  George  of  Greece. 
Thus  ex-King  Constantine  is  her  nephew 
and  a  first  cousin  of  King  George  of  Eng- 
land. 

Q. — What  relation  is  the  Emperor 
of  Germany  to  King  George? 

A. — Cousin.  The  Emperor's  mother 
was  the  eldest  daughter  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria, and  sister  of  Edward  VII.  The 


Emperor  is,  in  fact,  as  much  English  as 
King  George,  whose  mother  was  a  Danish 
Princess. 

Q. — What  nationality  is  the  Prince 
Consort  of  the  Queen  of  Hol- 
land? 

A. — He  belongs  to  the  Mecklenburg 
family,  being  an  uncle  of  the  present 
Grand  Duke  of  Mccklenberg-Schwerin. 
The  Grand  Ducal  House  of  Mecklenberg 
is  the  only  reigning  family  in  western 
Europe  of  Slavonic  origin,  and  claims  to 
be  the  oldest  sovereign  house  in  the  west- 
ern world.  In  their  full  title  the  Grand 
Dukes  style  themselves  Princes  of  the 
Wends.  Their  genealogical  table  begins 
with  Niklot,  who  died  in  1160,  and  com- 
prises 25  generations. 

Q. — Is  the  Queen  of  Roumania  an 
English  Princess? 

A. — She  is  so  regarded,  being  a  daugh- 
ter of  one  of  the  sons  of  Queen  Victoria, 
Prince  Alfred,  Duke  of  Edinburgh,  who, 
in  1893,  became  Duke  of  Saxe-Coburg  and 
Gotha  in  succession  to  the  brother  of  the 
Prince  Consort.  Prince  Alfred  married 
the  Grand  Duchess  Marie  Alexandrovna 
of  Russia,  and  had  four  daughters — the 
present  Queen  of  Rumania  being  the  eld- 
est— and  one  son,  who  predeceased  him. 
The  Duke  of  Connaught  became  heir  to 
the  Dukedom  of  Saxe-Coburg  when 
Prince  Alfred  died,  but  he  and  his  son 
renounced  the  succession.  It  then  passed 
to  the  son  of  the  late  Duke  of  Albany, 
Queen  Victoria's  youngest  son.  This  son, 
a  grandson  of  Queen  Victoria,  and  brother 
of  Princess  Alexander  of  Teck,  and 
therefore  the  brother-in-law  of  Queen 
Mary,  was  recently  deprived  of  his  Eng- 
lish titles  by  King  George,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  a  German  Prince.  The 
Queen  of  Roumania  is  his  cousin.  Other 
first  cousins  of  her  are  King  George,  the 
Queen  of  Spain,  the  Queen  of  Norway, 
the  Crown  Princess  of  Sweden,  Prince 
Arthur  of  Connaught,  the  Kaiser,  the  ex- 
Queen  of  Greece,  Prince  Henry  of  Prus- 
sia and  Princess  Henry,  the  ex-Czarina, 
Princess  Louise  of  Battenberg,  and 
Prince  Albert  of  Schleswig-Holstem. 

Q. — Is  the  wife  of  the  ex-Czar 
Nicholas  a  German  princess  by 
birth? 

A. — She  is  almost  always  spoken  of 
as  a  pure  German,  but  though  she  was 
born  in  Hesse,  her  mother  was  Princess 
Alice  of  England,  the  favorite  daughter 
of  Queen  Victoria,  sister  of  Edward  VII, 


Who's  Who  in  Royalty 


303 


an  aunt  of  King  George  V.  Her  sister 
married  Prince  Louis  of  Battenburg,  who 
was  First  Sea  Lord  when  the  war  broke 
out.  Her  father  was  Grand  Duke  Ludwig 
of  Hesse. 

Q. — Is  it  true  that  the  Kaiser,  by 
virtue  of  his  English  mother, 
has  a  claim  to  the  British 
throne? 

A. — Certainly  not.  Although  women 
may  sit  on  the  throne  of  England,  the 
male  members  of  the  family  inherit  first. 
Consequently,  although  the  Kaiser's 
mother  was  the  eldest  child  of  Queen 
Victoria,  she  could  have  come  to  the 
throne  only  if  her  brothers,  King  Ed- 
ward VII,  the  Duke  of  Edinburgh,  and 
the  Duke  of  Connaught  had  died.  Had 
they  all  died,  their  children  would  have 
succeeded  to  the  throne  of  Great  Britain 
before  the  children  of  the  Empress.  Far 
away  from  the  throne  of  England  as  he 
is,  the  young  son  of  the  King  of  Norway, 
whose  mother  is  King  Edward's  daughter, 
is  nearer  to  it  than  is  the  Kaiser. 


Q. — Was  Hanover  ever  under 
British  rule,  and  for  what  pe- 
riod of  time? 

A. — Hanover  was  never  under  British 
rule,  but  an  Elector  of  Hanover,  George 
Louis,  became  King  George  I  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  in  1714.  From  that 
time  until  1837  the  Kings  of  England 
were  Electors,  and,  later,  Kings  of  Han- 
over as  well,  but  Hanover  was  not  ruled 
from  London,  any  more  than  the  United 
Kingdom  was  ruled  from  Hanover.  Brit- 
ish Ministers  always  took  care  to  keep 
the  interest  of  Great  Britain  distinct  from 
those  of  their  King's  other  kingdom  on 
the  Continent.  Because  of  this  connec- 
tion with  England,  however,  Hanover  had 
a  bad  time  before,  during,  and  after  the 
Napoleonic  wars.  It  was  regarded  as  a 
vulnerable  outpost  of  Great  Britain. 

Q. — Did  Hanover  fight  Prussia? 

A. — The  Hanoverians  fought  against 
Prussia,  in  1743,  were  allied  with  Fred- 
erick the  Great  during  the  Seven  Years' 
War,  and  in  1757  were  compelled  to 
abandon  their  country  to  the  French. 
Next  year,  thanks  to  English  gold,  the 
French  were  cleared  out.  Hanoverian 
troops  fought  with  the  Allies  against 
France  from  1793  to  1795,  when  a 
treaty  between  France  and  Prussia  forced 
neutrality  upon  them.  The  Prussians  oc- 


cupied the  country  in  1801,  on  the  sug- 
gestion of  Napoleon,  but  two  years  later 
the  French  were  again  in  occupation. 
After  Jena,  Napoleon  divided  Hanover 
in  two.  The  southern  half  he  added  to 
the  Kingdom  of  Westphalia,  and  the 
northern  to  France.  With  his  final  de- 
feat, Hanover  became  again  independent. 


Q. — When  was  Hanover  separated 
from  the  British  throne? 

A. — When  William  IV  died  in  1837  and 
was  succeeded  by  Queen  Victoria,  the  sov- 
ereign of  Great  Britain  ceased  to  be  also 
ruler  of  Hanover,  because  under  the  dy- 
nastic laws  of  Hanover  a  woman  was  not 
allowed  to  ascend  that  throne.  Ernest, 
Duke  of  Cumberland,  obtained  the  suc- 
cession, therefore,  instead  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria. The  two  crowns  had  been  united 
for  123  years.  The  growing  power  of 
Prussia  was  a  bitter  thing  to  the  Han- 
overians, and,  in  the  war  between  the  for- 
mer and  Austria,  blind  King  George  V  of 
Hanover  threw  in  his  lot  with  the  Aus- 
trians.  He  was  defeated  in  the  field,  and 
Hanover  was  formally  annexed  to  Prussia 
in  1866. 


Q. — How  are  the  rulers  of  Europe 
inter-related? 

A. — King  George  is  first  cousin  of  the 
ex-Czar  and  also  of  the  Czarina.  He  is 
first  cousin  of  the  King  of  Denmark,  bro- 
ther of  the  Queen  of  Norway,  first  cousin 
of  the  Queen  of  Spain ;  of  the  ex-King  of 
Greece,  of  the  Duke  of  Brunswick  (who 
married  the  Kaiser's  daughter  in  1913)  ; 
of  the  Duke  of  Coburg,  and  is  related  to 
many  other  reigning  princes  of  Germany, 
now  in  the  field.  The  King  of  Italy  and 
the  King  of  Serbia  both  married  daugh- 
ters of  the  King  of  Montenegro,  other 
daughters  of  that  monarch  marrying  Ger- 
man and  Russian  princes.  Ferdinand  of 
Bulgaria  is  a  nephew  of  Prince  Albert, 
King  George's  grandfather.  King  Albert 
of  Belgium  is  closely  related  to  the 
Hohenzollerns,  and  Saxe-Coburgs,  and 
the  Bavarian  Royal  House.  The  Queen 
of  Holland  is  a  Princess  of  Nassau,  and 
married  Prince  Henry  of  Mecklenburg- 
Schwerin,  whose  niece  married  the  Crown 
Prince  of  Germany.  The  King  of  Sweden 
is  a  grandson  of  Napoleon's  Marshal, 
Bernadotte,  and  married  the  daughter  of 
the  Grand  Duke  of  Baden.  The  Emperor 
of  Austria  is  the  head  of  the  House  of 
Hapsburg,  with  relatives  in  every  Court 
in  Europe.  The  King  of  Spain  belongs  to 
that  House. 


304 


Questions  and  Answers 


Q. — How  many  kings  have  reigned 
in  Prussia  since  Frederick  the 
Great? 

A. — Six.  The  first  King  of  Prussia 
was  Elector  Friedrich  of  Brandenburg. 
He  assumed  the  crown  as  Friedrich  I  in 
1701.  He  was  followed  by  Friedrich  Wil- 
helm  I  in  1713.  Then  came  Friedrich  II 
(Frederick  the  Great)  in  1740.  He  was 
followed  by  Friedrich  Wilhelm  II  in  1786, 
then  came  Friedrich  Wilhelm  III  in  1797. 
(This  is  the  King  who  fought  Napoleon.) 
Friedrich  Wilhelm  IV  followed  in  1840, 
then  Wilhelm  I  in  1861.  He  became  Ger- 
man Emperor  in  1871.  His  son,  Fried- 
rich  III,  succeeded  in  1888  and  reigned 
for  three  months.  His  son,  the  present 
Kaiser  Wilhelm  II,  began  his  reign  in 
1888. 

Q. — What  was  the  so-called 
"Three-Emperor  Year"? 

A. — 1888.  Three  Emperors  succeeded 
each  other  in  Germany  that  year,  owing 
to  death.  Wilhelm  I,  his  son  Friedrich 
III,  and  the  present  Kaiser  Wilhelm  II. 

Q. — Who  is  the  wealthiest  sover- 
eign in  the  world? 

A. — The  Mikado.  His  revenues,  how- 
ever, are  administered  by  the  Elder 
Statesmen.  He  owns  about  5  million 
acres,  more  than  one-twentieth  of  the  area 
of  Japan.  He  holds  shares  in  the  Bank  of 
Japan,  Yokohama  Specie  Bank,  Industrial 
Bank,  and  the  Shipping  Company  Nippon 
Yusen  Kaisha.  His  land  holdings  prob- 
ably reach  500  million  dollars  and  his  in- 
dustrial holdings  250  millions.  The  Ger- 
man Kaiser's  property  is  believed  to  ag- 
gregate about  125  millions  in  value.  Both 
Kaiser  and  Mikado  have  to  pay  many  pen- 
sions and  other  grants  out  of  this  income. 

Q. — Does  the  Belgian  Royal  Fam- 
ily still  reside  in  Belgium? 

A. — The  village  capital  of  La  Panne 
shelters  the  royal  family.  It  is  in  that 
ever  famous  little  northwestern  corner 
which  for  two  years  and  a  half  has  been 


all    of    the    kingdom    of    Belgium    under 
royal  rule. 

Q. — Is     ex-King     Constantine     of 
Greece  a  great  soldier? 

A. — Dr.  Dillon  called  him  the  world's 
greatest  living  strategist,  but  that  is  no 
doubt  a  great  exaggeration.  Still  there  is 
the  fact  that  he  led  the  Greeks  to  victory 
in  both  Balkan  wars,  and  it  is  due  to  his 
military  achievements  that  he  had  such 
great  influence  in  Greece. 

Q. — What  are  the  incomes  of  Eu- 
ropean monarchs? 

A. — The  ruling  kings  get  certain  grants 
from  the  State,  and  in  addition  most  _of 
them  have  large  private  estates,  which 
bring  them  in  great  incomes.  King 
George  gets  most  of  his  money  not  be- 
cause he  is  King  of  England,  but  because 
he  is  Duke  of  York,  of  Lancaster,  etc. 
Each  monarch  has  a  civil  list  paid  him  by 
the  State,  and  out  of  this  he  has  to  pay 
for  his  various  establishments  and  make 
allowances  to  sons,  daughters  and  other 
members  of  his  family.  In  England  spe- 
cial grants  are  made  by  the  State  to  mem- 
bers of  the  Royal  Family.  Queen  Alex- 
andra gets  £70,000  ($350,000)  a  year,  the 
Duke  of  Connaught  £25,000  ($125,000) 
annually,  and  some  half-dozen  others  get 
£6,000  ($30,000)  a  year  each.  The  Prince 
of  Wales  gets  about  £90,000  ($450,000)  a 
year  revenue  from  the  Duchy  of  Corn- 
wall. The  revenue  the  King  draws  from 
his  Duchy  of  Lancaster  is  about  £70,000 
($350,000)  a  year.  The  civil  lists  of  the 
reigning  sovereigns  were  as-  follows : 

Czar  of  Russia $8,000,000 

Emperor  of  Austria 4,710,000 

German  Emperor 3,850,000 

King  of  England 3,080,000 

King  of  Italy 3,000,000 

King  of  Belgium 660,000 

King  of  Greece 400,000 

Queen  of  Holland 400,000 

Czar  of  Bulgaria 400,000 

King  of  Sweden 391,250 

King  of  Denmark 275,000 

King  of  Serbia 240,000 

King   of    Roumania 500,000 

King  of  Norway 190,000 


WAR'S  WHO'S  WHO  IN  FIGHTERS 


Q. — Was  General  Wood  a  doctor 
at  first? 

A. — Major-General  Leonard  Wood, 
wounded  early  in  1918  by  a  gun-explosion 
in  France,  served  through  the  Geronimo 
Apache  campaign  in  the  American  south- 
west as  a  "contract  surgeon" — meaning 
that  he  was  not  regularly  in  the  service. 
He  was  soon  made  a  lieutenant  and  was 
one  of  the  captors  of  Geronimo.  In  the 
war  with  Spain  he  was  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  of  the  Rough  Riders.  He  became 
Brigadier-General,  ''won  great  fame  for 
his  work  in  regenerating  the  city  of  San- 
tiago-de-Cuba,  and  was  made  Major-Gen- 
eral when  Roosevelt  became  President. 
He  then  served  in  the  Philippines  (  Gov- 
ernor of  Mindanao  and  Commander  of 
the  Department  of  the  Philippines)  and 
became  Chief  of  Staff  of  the  U.  S.  Army 
later. 

Q. — Was    General    Joffre    in    the 
Franco-Prussian  War? 

A. — General  Joseph  Jacques  Cesaire 
Joffre  (born  1852)  was  second-lieuten- 
ant during  the  Franco-Prussian  war  of 
1870-71,  commanding  a  battery  in  the 
siege  of  Paris.  He  served  with  distinc- 
tion in  Asia  and  Africa.  Appointed  chief 
of  the  general  staff  of  the  French  Army 
in  1911,  he  assumed  chief  command  at  the 
beginning  of  the  war.  He  was  succeeded 
in  active  supreme  command  at  the  end  of 
1916,  after  two  and  a  half  years,  by  Gen- 
eral Nivelle,  whose  reputation  was  made 
in  the  defense  of  Verdun,  but  who  was 
soon  superseded  by  General  Petain.  Gen- 
eral Joffre  was  then  made  marshal  of 
France,  and  is  now  chief  military  adviser 
to  the  French  Government. 

He  was  a  popular  hero  in  America  in 
1917  when  he  was  here  as  the  head  of  the 
French  mission. 

Q. — Who  was  Lord  Kitchener? 

A. — The  foremost  British  soldier  of 
modern  times,  and  at  the  time  of  his 
death  beyond  doubt  the  most  dominant 
personality  in  the  British  Empire.  His 
achievements — the  conquest  of  the  Sudan, 
the  completion  of  the  South  African  cam- 
paign, administration  of  Egyptian  affairs, 
and,  above  all,  the  building  up  of  a  vast 
British  fighting  force  for  Britain's  great- 
est war — place  him  in  the  front  rank  of 
the  world's  great  men,  as  a  soldier,  ad- 


ministrator and  military  organizer.  He 
was  drowned  in  the  sinking  by  mine  or 
submarine  of  the  British  warship  Hamp- 
shire off  the  western  coast  of  the  Orkney 
Isles  June  5,  1916,  while  on  his  way  to  a 
consultation  in  Russia  regarding  details 
of  the  Allied  offensive  of  1916.  His  body 
was  never  recovered. 

Q. — What  was  Beatty's  command 
in  the  Jutland  fight? 

A. — Sir  David  Beatty,  who  was  made 
Commander  of  the  Grand  Fleet  of  the 
British  Navy  in  succession  to  Sir  John 
R.  Jellicoe,  was  present  and  played  a  gal- 
lant part  in  the  battle  of  Jutland  in  1916 
as  commander  of  the  First  Battle  Cruiser 
Squadron.  In  1901  he  married  a  daugh- 
ter of  Marshall  Field,  of  Chicago. 

Q. — Who  was  the  chief  of  the  Eng- 
lish Navy  when  war  began? 

A. — Admiral  Sir  John  R.  Jellicoe  (born 
1859).  He  had  seen  service  in  all  parts 
of  the  world,  and  in  August,  1914,  was 
appointed  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
Grand  Fleet.  He  commanded  in  the  bat- 
tle off  Jutland  in  1916.  He  relinquished 
his  place  to  Sir  David  Beatty,  becoming 
First  Sea  Lord  at  the  Admiralty,  which 
place  he  retained  till  nearly  1918. 

Q. — Who  succeeded  Admiral  Jelli- 
coe as  First  Sea  Lord? 

A. — Jellicoe  was  succeeded  by  Vice- 
Admiral  Sir  Rossyln  Wemyss,  who 
stepped  into  his  new  appointment  on  De- 
cember 26,  1917.  Wemyss  commanded 
the  squadron  which  in  the  early  part  of 
1915  protected  the  landing  of  the  troops 
in  Gallipoli.  He  is  53  years  of  age  and 
entered  the  Navy  in  1877. 

Q. — Is  Petain  really  a  great  gen- 
eral? 

A. — He  is.  Verdun  is  by  no  means  the 
first  victory  he  has  to  his  credit.  He  was 
a  colonel  when  the  war  began,  but  was 
at  once  put  in  command  of  a  brigade,  and 
was  General  of  Division  before  the  battle 
of  the  Marne  began.  He  was  thus  men- 
tioned in  the  army  order  of  September 
21,  1914 : — "Petain,  General  commanding 
the  Sixth  Division  of  Infantry,  has,  by 
his  example,  his  tenacity,  his  calm  under 
fire,  his  incessant  foresight,  his  continual 


305 


306 


Questions  and  Answers 


intervention  at  the  right  moment,  ob- 
tained from  his  division  during  fourteen 
days  of  consecutive  fighting,  a  magnificent 
effort,  resisting  repeated  attacks  night  and 
day,  and  the  fourteenth  day,  in  spite  of 
his  losses,  repelling  a  very  violent  final 
attack." 

Q.— What  else  did  he  do? 

A. — He  was  placed  in  command  of  an 
army  corps,  and  later  a  division  of  Mo- 
roccan troops  joined  him.  He  was  then 
ordered  to  take  Carency  and  pierce  the 
German  front.  After  three  days'  prepa- 
ration he  did  so,  and  broke  clean  through 
the  enemy  lines,  so  it  is  reported.  So 
impossible  had  his  colleagues  thought  suc- 
cess to  be  that  they  had  not  the  neces- 
sary reserves  available.  Consequently,  in- 
stead of  being  a  possible  turning-point  of 
the  war,  Carency  remains  only  a  brilliant 
local  victory.  Petain  also  was  responsible 
for  the  notable  French  advance  in  the 
Champagne.  Again,  it  is  said,  reserves 
he  ought  to  have  had  failed  to  appear  at 
the  crucial  moment.  Petain  is  59  years 
old,  and  is  unmarried. 


a     commander-in- 


Q.—Is     Haig 
chief? 

A. — Sir  Douglas  Haig  (born  1861)  is 
field  marshal  and  commander-in-chief 
of  the  British  forces  in  France  and  Flan- 
ders, being  promoted  when  Sir  John 
French  was  recalled  in  1915.  He  was  for 
many  years  in  the  cavalry,  becoming  ma- 
jor-general in  1904,  lieutenant-general  in 
1910,  and  general  in  1914.  He  was  at 
Khartum  with  Kitchener,  fought  for  three 
years  in  the  South  African  war,  and  saw 
much  service  in  India.  He  was  made 
field  marshal  after  the  Battle  of  the 
Somme  in  1916. 

Q. — Was  Hindenburg  famous  as  a 
general  before  the  war? 

A. — He  was  not  famous  at  all,  appar- 
ently not  even  in  Germany.  He  was 
noted,  if  at  all,  only  because  military  cir- 
cles knew  that  he  had  a  "fad"  for  study- 
ing the  Mazurian  Lake  region  of  East 
Prussia. 

When  the  Russians  invaded  that  prov- 
ince in  August,  1914,  Hindenburg  was 
suddenly  called  from  retirement,  and,  by 
brilliant  strategy,  destroyed  their  army  at 
Tannenberg.  That  victory  made  him  fhe 
idol  of  Germany,  and  led  the  Kaiser  to 
create  him  field  marshal.  The  following 
summer  he  drove  the  Russians  out  of 
Poland.  After  the  Battle  of  the  Somme, 
which  reflected  little  credit  on  General 


von  Falkenhayn,  that  general  was  deposed 
as  chief  of  the  general  staff  and  Hinden- 
burg put  in  his  place  (1916).  Hinden- 
burg's  chief  exploit  as  chief  of  staff  has 
been  the  retreat  from  the  Somme  in 
March,  1917,  a  maneuver  which  was  a 
very  extraordinary  masterpiece  of  strate- 
gy, and  made  an  end  to  the  Battle  of  the 
Somme  and  established  the  famous  Hin- 
denburg line.  It  is  often  asserted  that 
Hindenburg  is  not  so  great  a  general  as 
his  assistant,  LudendorfF,  the  first  quar- 
termaster-general. In  March,  1918,  he 
began  the  great  German  offensive  in 
Picardy  and  Flanders. 

Q. — Was  General  French  a  cavalry- 
man? 

A. — A  very  noted  one.  Field  Marshal 
Sir  John  French,  later  Viscount,  became 
celebrated  as  commander  of  the  cavalry 
division  in  the  South  African  war.  He 
commanded  with  skill  the  British  expe- 
ditionary force  in  Belgium  and  France 
from  the  beginning  of  the  war  until  he 
was  replaced  in  1915  by  Sir  Douglas  Haig. 
He  was  chief  of  the  imperial  general  staff 
in  1912-14.  His  title  is  Viscount  French 
of  Ypres,  in  testimony  of  his  gallant  and 
magnificent  services  in  that  battle  by 
which  the  Germans  were  frustrated  in 
their  design  to  reach  Calais. 

Q. — Who  was  the  sternest  Geiman 
commander  in  Belgium? 

A. — Probably  that  doubtful  honor  be- 
longs to  General  Freiherr  von  Bissing 
(1844-1917),  who  was  German  military 
governor  of  Belgium,  1914-1916,  and  re- 
sponsible, under  the  higher  German  au- 
thorities, for  the  scheme  of  reprisals  and 
deportations.  General  von  Bissing  fa- 
vored the  retention  of  Belgium  by  Ger- 
many, and  sought  to  disrupt  Belgian  unity 
by  dividing  the  Flemings  and  Walloons 
into  separate  administrative  districts.  He 
died  early  in  1917. 

Q. — Who  commanded  the  big  Rus- 
sian drive  of  1916? 

A. — General  Alexis  Brusilov.  He  was 
born  in  the  Caucasus  some  60  years  ago. 
After  the  removal  of  the  Grand  Duke 
Nicholas  he  took  command  of  the  south- 
western army,  and  was  in  charge  of  the 
Russian  drive  in  the  summer  of  1916, 
which  cost  the  Austrians  300,000  men.  He 
accepted  the  revolution  of  1917,  and  was 
made  commander-in-chief  of  all  the  Rus- 
sian armies.  He  was  in  charge  of  the 
Russian  drive  of  July,  1917,  but  when  the 
Russian  armies  broke  down  under  the 
Austro-German  counter  drive  he  resigned. 


War's  Who's  Who  in  Fighters 


3°7 


Q. — Is  Cadorna  Italian  command- 
er-in-chief? 

A. — General  Luigi,  Count  Cadorna,  was 
commander-in-chief  until  the  great  defeat 
of  the  Isonzo  in  November,  1917,  when 
he  was  replaced  by  General  Diaz.  A  na- 
tive of  the  extreme  northern  part  of 
Italy,  the  borderland  of  Lake  Maggipre, 
between  Lombardy  and  Piedmont,  he  is  a 
son  of  the  General  Count  Cadorna  who 
entered  Rome  with  the  Italian  troops  in 
1870  and  gave  the  city  as  a  capital  to 
Victor  Emmanuel. 

Q. — Did    a    German    manage    the 
Turkish  army? 

A. — Yes.  General  Kolmar  von  der 
Goltz  went  to  Turkey  in  1883  and  did 
much  to  reorganize  the  Turkish  army.  In 
1908  he  returned  to  Turkey  and  spent  two 
years  in  building  up  the  Turkish  army 
after  the  Young  Turk  revolution.  When 
disaster  overtook  the  Turks  in  the  Balkan 
wars,  two  years  after  his  departure,  von 
der  Gokz  received  no  small  blame  for 
the  failure  of  his  pupils.  This  is  prob- 
ably unjust,  for  the  failure  seems  due  to 
causes  over  which  von  der  Goltz  had  no 
control.  He  returned  to  Germany  in 
1910,  became  field  marshal,  and,  after  the 
outbreak  of  war  and  the  invasion  of  Bel- 
gium, military  governor  of  the  latter 
country.  After  the  entry  of  Turkey  into 
the  war,  he  went  to  Constantinople  to 
direct  the  Turkish  armies,  and  died,  while 
at  the  Turkish  front,  April  19,  1916. 

Q. — Was  Boy-Ed  a  sailor? 

A. — Yes.  Captain  Karl  Boy-Ed  was  in 
the  German  Navy  and  was  naval  attache 
of  the  German  embassy  in  Washington. 
He  was  dismissed  by  our  Government  on 
December  4,  1915,  fo.r  "improper  activity 
in  naval  matters." 

Q. — Was  Kornilov  a  Cossack? 

A. — Yes.  General  L.  G.  Kornilov  was  a 
Siberian  Cossack  general,  commanding 
one  of  the  armies  in  the  invasion  of 
Galicia.  During  the  Russian  retreat  he 
was  captured  by  the  Austrians,  but  es- 
caped. When  the  revolution  broke  out 
in  March,  1917,  he  was  appointed  com- 
mandant at  Petrograd,  and  later  detailed 
to  the  southwestern  army  under  Brusilov. 
He  commanded  one  of  the  armies  in  the 
advance  of  July,  1917.  After  Brusiloy's 
resignation  he  was  made  commander-in- 
chief  of  the  Russian  army,  and  inaugu- 
rated a  series  of  strong  military  meas- 
ures against  deserters  and  slackers. 


In  September  he  began  a  march  on 
Petrograd  apparently  with  the  object  of 
changing  the  personnel  of  the  govern- 
ment. The  movement  collapsed,  and  Gen- 
eral Kornilov  was  sentenced  to  be  tried 
as  a  rebel. 

Q. — Does  a  woman  own  the  great 
Krupp  works? 

A. — Yes.  The  Krupp  works  were  in- 
herited some  years  before  the  war  by 
Bertha,  the  daughter  of  Frederick  Alfred 
Krupp,  who  died  in  1902.  The  founder 
of  the  works  was  Alfred  Krupp  (1812- 
1887).  These  great  plants  at  Essen  em- 
ploy an  army  of  men.  In  1902  the  various 
Krupp  works  employed  43,100  persons, 
24,000  being  in  and  around  Essen. 

Q. — Was  Nivelle  ever  French  com- 
mander-in-chief ? 

A. — General  Robert  Nivelle  succeeded 
Joffre  as  commander-in-chief  in  Decem- 
ber, 1916,  and  relinquished  the  post  a  few 
months  later  to  General  Petain.  He  was 
a  colonel  of  an  artillery  regiment  in  the 
Battle  of  the  Marne  _at  the  beginning  of 
the  war.  By  conspicuous  gallantry  he 
turned  the  tide  at  the  Ourcq  River  and 
distinguished  himself  in  subsequent  en- 
gagements. He  was  called  to  Verdun  in 
March,  1916,  in  the  midst  of  the  Crown 
Prince's  "drive"  on  that  stronghold.  It 
has  been  said  that  he  was  ^'the  heart  and 
soul"  of  the  French  resistance  in  the 
months  that  followed. 

Subsequently  his  armies  failed  in  a 
great  offensive  and  there  has  been  much 
political  excitement  in  France  about  this 
affair.  It  was  the  great  offensive  on  the 
Aisne  front  whose  culmination  came 
April  1 6,  1917,  with  terribly  heavy  French 
losses,  though  signalized  by  brilliant 
deeds. 

Q. — Why  was  General  Robertson 
retired? 

A. — Ostensibly  because  he  would  not 
agree  with  the  Versailles  Conference. 
General  Sir  William  Robertson  has  been 
called  "the  brains  of  the  British  Army." 
Since  1915  he  has  been  chief  of  the  im- 
perial general  staff.  He  came  out  of  a 
humble  home  in  Lincolnshire,  where  _he 
was  born  in  1860.  Entering  the  service 
as  a  trooper,  he  saw  active  service  in  many 
parts  of  the  British  Empire,  and  was 
severely  wounded  in  one  of  his  colonial 
campaigns.  Before  being  called  to  his 
high  office  he  commanded  the  first  in- 
fantry division  in  France  and  was  chief 


Questions  and  Answers 


of    staff    to    Field     Marshal    Sir    John 
French.    He  was  knighted  in  1915. 

Q. — Who  led  the  British  army  that 
captured  German  West  Africa? 

A. — General  Smuts,  a  Boer  from  Cape 
Colony,  and  a  Boer  leader  against  Eng- 
land in  1903.  He  succeeded  to  command 
of  the  East  African  Expedition  in  March, 
1916,  and  within  a  year  had  driven  the 
German  forces  out  and  become  the  con- 
queror of  Germany's  colonies  in  West 
Africa, 

Q. — Is  Von  Tirpitz  a  Junker? 

A. — No,  except  in  opinion  and  sympa- 
thy. Admiral  Alfred  von  Tirpitz  is  a 
fighting  man  pure  and  simple,  and  his 
political  competence  never  would  have 
made  him  important.  But  as  an  admiral 
he  became  a  great  power. 

The  present  German  navy  was  built 
under  his  direction,  and  he  inspired  and 
directed  the  German  Navy  League.  He 
continued  to  hold  office  while  other  min- 
isters were  dismissed.  When  he  was 
finally  retired  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 
he  became  a  leader  of  the  Tory  Vaterland 
party,  a  Pan-German  party  that  demands 
victory  and  annexations. 

Q. — Which  general  reduced  Mau- 
beuge? 

A. — General  von  Zwehl.  According  to 
American  correspondents,  that  fortress 
fell  in  the  anticipated  ten  days,  and  the 
prisoners  numbered  40,000. 

Q. — Who  is  General  Baden-Powell? 

A. — He  is  an  Englishman,  son  of  the 
Rev.  Prof.  Baden-Powell,  of  Oxford,  and 
of  the  daughter  of  Admiral  W.  H.  Smyth. 
He  retired  from  the  army  in  1008,  and 
devoted  himself  to  the  Boy  Scout  move- 
ment, which  he  originated.  The  scouts 
have  done  splendid  service  in  England 
during  the  war,  largely  under  his  direc- 
tion. His  name  is  pronounced  Bayden- 
Poel. 

Q. — What    was    General    Sarrail's 
command  ? 

A. — He  was  in  charge  of  the  army  in 
the  Verdun  region,  and  it  was  he  who 
reconstructed  that  famous  fortress,  for 
he  was  quick  to  learn  the  lesson  of  Liege 
and  Namur.  Before  the  European  strug- 
gle he  had  seen  service  in  Algeria  and 
Tunis.  He  is  one  of  the  youngest  of  the 
older  French  generals,  being  only  59.  His 
name  became  a  familiar  one  to  the  whole 
world  when  he  was  placed  in  charge  of 


the  allied  troops  that  seized  the  Greek- 
Macedonian  port  of  Saloniki  and  estab- 
lished the  allied  front  across  the  south- 
ern Balkans. 

Q. — Who  is  Enver  Pasha? 

A. — He  is  the  Minister  of  War  in  Tur- 
key. He  is  described  as  a  man  of  dic- 
tatorial temper,  without  any  of  the  attri- 
butes of  a  dictator.  Yet,  he  aims  to  be 
the  dictator  of  Turkey ;  he  already  is  dic- 
tator of  her  policy.  Of  Polish  descent, 
he^  is  Prussian  by  training  and  sympa- 
thies. He  married  a  daughter  of  the 
Sultan. 

Q. — Is  he  a  good  soldier? 

A. — Physically  he  is  dauntless  and 
dashing.  He  fought  well  against  the  Ital- 
ians in  Tripoli,  but  made  a  ghastly  mess 
of  things  when  he  opposed  the  Bulga- 
rians. He  is  apparently  a  fine  fighter  but 
without  much  talent  for  scientific  strate- 
gy. It  was  he  who  led  the  revolution 
during  the  Balkan  war  when  Nazim 
Pasha  was  assassinated — it  is  said  by 
Enver  himself.  He  was  also  prominent 
in  the  movement  which  led  to  the  deposi- 
tion of  Sultan  Abdul,  in  1909.  He  has 
worked  in  absolute  compliance  to  the 
wishes  and  aims  of  the  Germans. 

Q. — Who  was  the  von  Moltke  who 
was  Chief  of  the  German  Gen- 
eral Staff  when  the  war  broke 
out? 

A. — The  von  Moltke  who  was  Chief-of- 
Staff  in  1914,  and  who  died  recently,  was 
a  nephew  of  the  great  strategist  Count 
Helmuth  von  Moltke,  who  defeated  Aus- 
tria in  1867  and  France  in  1870.  This 
field  marshal  was  born  in  1800,  and  was, 
therefore,  70  years  old  when  France  and 
Prussia  went  to  war. 

Q. — How  old  are  the  leading  sol- 
diers in  this  war? 

A. — It  is  a  war  of  young  soldiers  but 
of  old  leaders.  When  the  struggle  began 
Kitchener  was  63 ;  French,  the  greatest 
cavalry  leader  in  Great  Britain,  was  61 ; 
Lord  Fisher  was  72;  General  Joffre  was 
62;  General  Pau  came  out  of  his  retire- 
ment at  66,  and  took  the  second  position 
in  the  French  Army;  General  Castelnau, 
third  in  command,  was  about  the  same 
age ;  and  General  Gallieni,  the  defender 
of  Paris,  was  70.  Von  der  Goltz  was 
71 ;  von  Hindenburg  67,  and  von  Emmich, 
who  took  Liege  and  has  since  died,  was 
64.  Von  Kluck  was  67,  and  von  Moltke 
66. 


War's  Who's  Who  in  Fighters 


309 


The  struggle)  as  it  progressed,  how- 
ever, gave  younger  men  a  chance.  Von 
Ludendorff,  who  appears  to  share  su- 
preme command  with  von  Hindenburg 
in  Germany,  was  only  50,  but  von 
Mackensen,  the  greatest  fighting  general 
the  enemy  have,  was  nearly  70.  Sir 
Douglas  Haig  was  54;  Sir  David  Beatty 
is  one  of  the  youngest  admirals.  He  is 
only  45.  Sir  W.  Robertson,  Chief-of- 
Staff  in  Great  Britain,  was  56.  On  the 
whole  admirals  are  considerably  younger 
than  generals.  There  is  no  notable  gen- 
eral in  the  English  army  as  young  as 
Beatty.  The  former  commander-in-chief 
of  the  Grand  Fleet,  Admiral  Jellicoe,  is 
56.  Compared  with  the  majority  of  the 
leaders  in  the  field  to-day,  the  brilliant 
soldiers  of  the  Napoleonic  era  were 
youths. 

Q. — Was     Bernhardi    a    political 
power  in  Germany? 

A. — No.  General  Friedrich  von  Bern- 
hardi (born  1849)  was  a  military  writer 
whose  technical  knowledge  was  undoubt- 
ed. His  political  importance  is  due  .only 
to  his  expression  of  militarist  political 
ideas.  He  achieved  prominence  through 
his  volume  "Germany  and  the  Next  War" 
(1911).  In  this  he  sets  forth  with  frank 
cynicism  the  advantages,  the  necessity, 
and  the  inevitability  of  a  war  between 
Germany  and  England.  His  argument  is : 
Germany  can  acquire  that  "place  in  the 
sun"  which  is  her  due  only  by  war,  be- 
cause the  Triple  Entente — Russia,  France 
and  England — each  and  all  endowed  with 
vast  colonial  possessions  which  they  can 
not  adequately  use,  have  been  surround- 
ing Germany  with  a  ring  of  iron.  "In  one 
way  or  another  we  must  square  our  ac- 
count with  France  if  we  wish  for  a  free 
hand  in  our  international  policy."  For 
Germany  the  question  is,  "to  be,  or  not 
to  be."  It  is  either  "world  power  or 
downfall."  While  his  book  was  too  ex- 
pensive to  be  read  by  common  people,  it 
had,  nevertheless,  gone  through  eight  edi- 
tions before  the  war. 

Q. — What  war  experience  did  Gen- 
eral Pershing  have? 

A. — A  great  deal,  before  he  went  to 
France.  In  the  year  of  his  graduation 
from  West  Point  (1886),  John  Joseph 
Pershing  (born  1860  in  Missouri)  was 
sent  to  New  Mexico  and  Arizona  to 
fight  in  the  Apache  campaign.  He  re- 
mained in  active  Indian  service  till  the 


Sioux  campaign  in  Dakota  (1891)  practi- 
cally ended  Indian  warfare.  In  1898  he 
commanded  the  Tenth  Cavalry  in  the 
fighting  around  Santiago  de  Cuba  in  the 
Spanish-American  War.  From  1899  to 
1903  he  served  in  the  Philippines.  He 
was  American  military  attache  in  Tokio, 
1905-1906,  and  as  such  was  with  Kuro- 
ki's  army  in  Manchuria  during  the  Russo- 
Japanese  War.  In  1906  he  returned  to 
the  Philippines  and  had  the  very  arduous 
task  of  governing  Mindana  and  the  re- 
bellious Moros.  It  was  a  long*  cam- 
paign, partly  military  and  partly  diplo- 
matic, and  "Jack"  Pershing  became 
equally  famous  in  Washington  for  his 
talents  in  both  directions.  He  finally 
ended  Moro  opposition  by  administering 
a  decisive  defeat  to  them  in  the  famous 
Battle  of  Bagsag. 

In  1915  he  commanded  the  Presidio  in 
California,  and  there  came  a  tragedy  in 
his  life  when  his  wife  and  three  daughters 
were  burned  to  death  there. 

In  March,  1916,  General  Pershing  be- 
came freshly  famous  when  he  commanded 
the  celebrated  expeditionary  force  that 
penetrated  into  Mexico  and  ended  Villa's 
power  for  disorder.  In  1917  he  became 
Commander-in-Chief  of  the  American 
Expeditionary  Forces  in  France. 

Q. — When  did  General  Foch  first 
become  known? 

A.— At  the  Battle  of  the  Marne,  Sep- 
tember, 1914,  when  he  led  the  7th  French 
Army  Corps.  He  was  assigned,  under 
General  Joffre's  strategy,  to  oppose  the 
victoriously  advancing  German  line  at  a 
point  south  of  Chalons — almost  exactly 
midway  between  Paris  and  Verdun. 
Foch's  army  represented  the  French  cen- 
ter. The  Germans  struck  at  it  desper- 
ately on  September  7  and  drove  the  French 
south,  inflicting  heavy  losses.  Foch  ral- 
lied his  forces  and  on  September  9,  by  a 
brilliant  piece  of  strategy,  assumed  an 
utterly  unexpected  offensive  himself,  and 
drove  his  army  clear  through  the  Ger- 
man line,  routing  the  famous  Prussian 
Guard.  It  is  held  that  this  battle  decided 
the  Battle  of  the  Marne.  It  forced  the 
swift  retirement  of  the  whole  German 
line.  Later  Foch's  troops,  with  the  Brit- 
ish, fought  the  tremendous  Battle  of 
Ypres.  Foch  was  67  years  old  when,  in 
March,  1918,  he  was  made  supreme  com- 
mander of  not  only  the  French,  but  the 
British  and  American  forces  to  oppose 
the  furious  thrust  of  the  Germans  to- 
ward Amiens  in  the  great  Battle  of  Pi- 
cardy. 


WAR'S  WHO'S  WHO  IN  CIVILIANS 


Q. — Was  Asquith  in  power  when 
war  began? 

A. — He  was  Prime  Minister,  a  post  he 
had  held  since  1908.  It  carried  with  it, 
under  English  political  custom,  the  leader- 
ship of  his  party. 

He  had  been  Home  Secretary  in  Glad- 
stone's last  ministry,  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  in  1905,  and  Prime  Minister  in 
1908.  His  attitude  toward  foreign  affairs 
was  largely  the  moderate  imperialism  of 
Lord  Rosebery.  In  domestic  politics, 
while  opposing  the  Radicals,  he  advocated 
social  reform,  home  rule  for  Ireland,  the 
democratization  of  the  electoral  system, 
and  especially  restrictions  on  the  legisla- 
tive veto  of  the  House  of  Lords.  The 
Parliament  act  of  1911,  by  which  the 
House  of  Lords  lost  its  power  to  stop 
legislation  passed  by  the  Commons,  was 
passed  when  he  was  Premier.  In  1915, 
to  avoid  a  general  election,  he  established 
a  coalition  cabinet.  The  Dardanelles  fail- 
ure and  the  Mesopotamian  fiasco  put  his 
Government  on  the  defensive.  The  op- 
position of  the  Northcliffe  newspapers,  the 
unwillingness  of  Lloyd  George  to  support 
him,  and  the  widespread  feeling  that  his 
Government  was  not  sufficiently  energetic 
forced  his  resignation  on  December  5, 
1916. 

Q. — Had  Lloyd  George  not  de- 
nounced the  Boer  War  bit- 
terly? 

A. — So  bitterly  that  he  was  nearly 
mobbed  more  than  once.  David  Lloyd 
George,  a  Welshman  (born  1863),  entered 
Parliament  in  1890.  He  drew  public  at- 
tention by  his  vigorous  opposition  to  the 
Boer  War,  which  he  denounced  in  public 
meetings  at  decided  personal  risk.  Never- 
theless, he  entered  the  Liberal  Cabinet  of 
1905,  and  in  1908  became  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer.  His  first  budget  proposed 
a  heavy  tax  on  unoccupied  land  and  was 
forced  through  the  House  of  Lords  only 
by  the  threat  of  the  creation  of  new 
peers.  He  then  championed  the  cause  of 
social  reforms,  being  the  chief  advocate 
of  measures  such  as  workingmen's  in- 
surance. In  May,  1915,  he  undertook  the 
difficult  task  of  directing  the  munitions 
production,  in  which  labor  difficulties  had 
arisen.  For  this  task  a  new  department, 
the  Ministry  of  Munitions,  was  created. 
As  Minister  of  Munitions  Lloyd  George 
was  a  success,  and  when  Asquith  resigned 
in  December,  1916,  he  became  Premier. 


Q. — Is  Balfour  a  statesman  of  the 
democratic  type? 

A. — Arthur  James  Balfour  (born  1848) 
is  a  very  distinguished  and  skilful 
statesman  distinctly  of  the  old-fashioned 
British  type.  He  entered  Parliament  in 
1874,  held  several  cabinet  positions,  and 
became  head  of  the  Conservative  Party 
and  Premier  in  July,  1902.  He  resigned 
in  December,  1905,  just  before  a  crush- 
ing defeat  of  his  party  at  the  hands  of 
the  Liberals  in  the  elections  of  January, 
1006.  His  leadership  of  the  party  in  op- 
position was  disliked,  and  he  later  re- 
signed this  leadership  to  Bonar  Law. 

When  the  coalition  cabinet  was  formed 
in  May,  1915,  Mr.  Balfour  became  head 
of  the  admiralty,  and  in  December,  1916, 
relinquished  this  for  the  post  of  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  suc- 
ceeding Viscount  Grey  of  Falloden.  In 
this  capacity  he  headed  the  British  mis- 
sion to  the  United  States  in  the  spring 
of  1917. 

Q.— Who  was  the  "War  Chancel- 
lor" in  Germany? 

A. — Dr.  Theobald  von  Bethmann-Holl- 
weg  (born  1856).  He  was  the  son  of  a 
famous  Prussian  Liberal  politician  and 
passed  through  the  grades  of  the  public 
service  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior. 
In  July,  1909,  he  succeeded  Prince  Bulow 
as  Imperial  Chancellor,  and  held  office 
eight  years.  Before  the  war  Bethmann- 
Hollweg  was  considered  a  Liberal.  He 
seems  to  have  desired  an  entente  with 
Great  Britain,  and  had,  apparently, 
achieved  it  in  1914,  when,  as  he  lamented, 
the  war  shattered  his  plans. 

In  German  politics  he  tried  to  hold  the 
balance  between  the  Pan-Germans  and  the 
Socialists,  refusing  to  commit  himself  to 
any  definite  peace  program,  but  his  ma- 
jority was  destroyed  in  July,  1917,  when 
the  Center,  or  Catholic,  party  suddenly 
allied  itself  with  the  Socialists  in  favor 
of  a  peace  without  annexations  or  indem- 
nities. 

Von  Bethmann-Hollweg  declared  in  the 
Reichstag  that  Belgium  had  been  wronged 
under  the  pressure  of  necessity. 

Q. — Who  succeeded  Von  Beth- 
mann-Hollweg as  German 
Chancellor? 

A. —  (I)  Dr.  Georg  Michaelis  (born 
1857)  succeeded  von  Bethmann-Hollweg 
directly  (in  July,  1917),  but  lasted  only 


310 


War's  Who's  Who  in  Civilians 


until  November.  He  failed  to  develop 
any  policy  satisfactory  to  any  party  in  the 
Reichstag.  He  had  been  Prussian  under- 
secretary of  finance  and  later  food  con- 
troller, in  which  office  he  had  been  nota- 
bly successful. 

(II)  Count  George  V.  von  Hertling 
(born  1843)  became  Chancellor  of  the 
German  Empire  after  November  I,  1917, 
in  succession  to  Michaelis.  A  fact  worth 
noting  is  that  he  is  a  Bavarian  while  his 
predecessors  were  Prussians.  He  was  for 
years  a  professor  in  Bonn,  then  a  member 
of  the  Bavarian  Chamber.  Since  1912  he 
had  been  Prime  Minister  of  Bavaria.  In 
politics  he  belongs  to  the  conservative 
wing  of  the  Center  or  Clerical  party.  _  He 
is  said  to  be  more  flexible  in  his  views 
than  many  German  leaders  and  to  be  op- 
posed to  the  annexation  program  of  the 
Pan-Germans.  He  has  been  hailed  as 
recognizing  parliamentary  rule  because  he 
consulted  leaders  of  the  Reichstag. 

Q. — How  many  Foreign  Ministers 
has  Germany  had  since  war 
began? 

A. — Three,  from  the  beginning  of  war 
to  the  spring  of  1918. 

Gottlieb  von  Jagow  (born-  1863)  held 
the  office  when  war  began. 

He  was  succeeded  in  1916  by  Dr.  Alfred 
Zimmermann  (born  1859),  who  was 
forced  to  resign  when  the  United  States 
disclosed  his  note  to  the  German  Minister 
in  Mexico  proposing  an  alliance  of  Ger- 
many, Mexico  and  Japan  against  the 
United  States  if  we  should  enter  the  war. 

He  was  succeeded  in  1917  by  Richard 
von  Kuhlmann  (born  1873),  who  was 
Councillor  of  the  German  Embassy  in 
London  when  the  war  began.  He  then 
went  to  Holland  and  later  was  ambassa- 
dor to  Turkey,  being  recalled  to  become 
Foreign  Minister. 

Q. — Is  von  Biilow  playing  any  part 
in  Europe  now? 

A. — Von  Biilow  has  been  one  of  the 
mysteries  of  the  war — mentioned  in  the 
news  constantly  but  never  ^with  any  facts 
to  indicate  what  he  is  doing.  Since  his 
failure  to  keep  Italy  out  of  the  war,  when 
he  was  there  as  German  ambassador,  he 
has  lived  in  Switzerland.  His  book 
"Imperial  Germany"  (1913)  is  an  ex- 
cellent presentation  of  the  moderate  Prus- 
sian point  of  view. 

Prince  Bernhard  von  Biilow  (born 
1849)  belongs  to  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished families  in  Europe.  He  was 
Chancellor  of  the  Empire  from  1900  to 
1909. 


Q. — Who  was  Premier  of  France 
when  war  began? 

A. — Rene  Viviani  was  Premier  of 
France  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  but 
gave  way  to  M.  Briand,  in  whose  cabinet 
he  accepted  the  post  of  vice  president  and 
Minister  of  Justice.  He  was  the  head 
of  the  French  mission  which  visited  the 
United  States  in  May,  1917.  M.  Viviani 
is  a  gifted  orator,  who  aroused  his  Ameri- 
can audiences  to  enthusiasm. 

The  second  Premier  was  Aristide 
Briand  (born  1862),  who  had  been 
Prime  Minister  several  times.  He  be- 
gan his  career  as  a  Socialist.  His  most 
notable  achievement  was  the  applica- 
tion of  the  law  separating  church  and 
state.  In  1909  he  suppressed  a  railway 
strike  by  calling  the  strikers  to  the  colors, 
despite  the  fact  that  he  was  the  leading 
member  of  the  Socialist-Radical  party. 
Briand  was  Prime  Minister  from  October 
30,  1915,  to  March  17,  1917. 

Q. — Who  was  France's  third  war 
Premier? 

A. — Alexandre  F.  J.  Ribot  (born  1842) 
who  had  been  Prime  Minister  several 
times,  like  Briand.  He  is  the  man  who, 
between  1890  and  1893,  first  as  Foreign 
Minister,  later  as  Foreign  Minister  and 
Premier,  pushed  through  the  Franco- 
Russian  agreement.  Between  1895  and 
1906  he  was  less  prominent  in  public  life, 
but  when  nationalism  revived  in  France 
after  1906  Ribot  again  became  more  of  a 
figure.  In  October,  1915,  he  became 
Finance  Minister  and  in  March,  1917, 
Premier.  He  advocated  a  vigorous  prose- 
cution of  the  war  but  was  defeated  on  a 
small  question  in  August,  1917.  He  re- 
mained in  the  Government  of  his  succes- 
sor, M.  Painleve,  as  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  but  soon  withdrew. 

Q. — Did  France  have  a  professor 
as  Premier? 

^A. — Paul  Painleve  (1863)  was  a  scien- 
tist and  scholar,  a  mathematician,  pro- 
fessor at  the  Sorbonne,  a  brilliant  chem- 
ist, a  physicist,  an  excellent  speaker,  and 
leader  in  political  life.  In  politics  he  is  a 
Republican-Socialist,  i.  e.,  a  moderate.  At 
the  opening  of  the  war  he  urged  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  superior  commission  on 
inventions  to  continue  the  work  of  the 
commission  on  inventions  of  the  War  De- 
partment, most  of  whose  officials  had 
taken  the  field.  He  himself  is  reported  to 
have  invented  the  gas  used  against  the 
Germans  at  Verdun. 
He  was  taken  into  the  cabinet  as  Min- 


312 


Questions  and  Answers 


ister  of  Public  Instruction,  October  31, 
IQIS  I  was  appointed  to  the  new  portfolio 
of  Minister  of  Inventions  in  January, 
1916;  Minister  of  War,  1917,  where  one 
of  his  chief  acts  was  the  appointment  of 
Petain  to  the  chief  command.  On  the 
fall  of  the  Ribot  ministry  in  September, 
1917,  he  was  called  to  constitute  a  min- 
istry from  all  parties  (except  the  Unified 
Socialists)  for  the  sole  purpose  of  prose- 
cuting the  war ;  this  lasted,  however,  only 
for  a  few  weeks,  failing  in  November, 
1917. 

Q. — Had  Clemenceau  been  Premier 
before? 

A. — Georges  Clemenceau  (born  1841)  is 
a  former  premier  of  France.  For  several 
years  he  lived  in  America,  but  returned 
to  France  in  1869.  He  entered  political 
life  after  the  war  of  1870-71.  Owing  to 
his  great  power  as  a  debater,  he  has  al- 
ways been  one  of  the  most  influential 
members  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 
He  has  probably  made  and  unmade  more 
ministries  than  any  other  Frenchman  of 
recent  history,  and  is  known  popularly  as 
"The  Tiger."  He  was  prominent  in  the 
Panama  scandals,  and  his  political  career 
has  been  a  varied  one.  He  is  the  editor 
of  a  newspaper  L'Homme  Libre,  which 
was  censored  so  often  during  the  war 
that  he  changed  its  name  to  L'Homme 
Enchaine. 


Q. — Has  the  President  of  France 
held  office  throughout  the  war? 

A. — The  President  of  France  is  elected 
(by  vote  of  the  Senate  and  Chamber  of 
Deputies)  for  a  period  of  7  years.  The 
term  of  the  present  President  does  not 
expire  till  1920.  The  President  of  France 
has  not  nearly  the  powers  of  an  American 
President. 

The  present  President  is  Raymond 
Poincare.  He  was  elected  January  17, 
1913.  Born  at  Bar-le-Duc,  in  French  Lor- 
raine. Lawyer  (advocate  at  the  court  of 
Paris)  and  writer.  Elected  to  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies  at  the  age  of  27,  in  1893 
he  became  Minister  of  Public  Instruction  ; 
1894,  of  Finance ;  1895,  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion ;  1896,  of  Finance.  He  refused  four 
other  offers  of  ministries.  He  was  elected 
senator,  1903,  and  was  finally  appointed 
Prime  Minister  and  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  1912,  which  office  he  held  until 
elected  President.  He  has  written  many 
books,  among  others  "How  France  Is 
Governed"  (1913).  He  has  been  opposed 
by  the  Socialists. 


Q. — Has  Serbia  still  a  govern- 
ment? 

A. — Yes.  It  still  has  its  king  and  cab- 
inet, though,  of  course,  they  are  not  in 
Serbia.  Prominent  in  this  exiled  court  is 
Nicholas  P.  Pasitch,  Premier  of  Serbia, 
who  has  held  office  since  September,  1912. 
He  piloted  Serbia  successfully  through 
the  Balkan  wars,  and  during  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  the  little  nation  since  the  Aus- 
tro-German-Bulgarian  conquest  (Novem- 
ber, 1915)  the  venerable  Premier  was  a 
constant  inspiration  to  his  people. 

Q. — Why  did  Count  Okuma  re- 
sign as  Japanese  Prime  Min- 
ister? 

A. — Count  ShSgenobu  Okuma  (born 
1838),  after  the  fall  of  Kiachow,  pre- 
sented to  China  a  series  of  demands 
which  the  latter  found  unacceptable. 
After  considerable  negotiation  a  compro- 
mise was  reached  which  gave  dissatisfac- 
tion in  Japan,  and  in  October,  1916,  Count 
Okuma  resigned  in  favor  of  Count 
Terauchi.  Count  Okuma  does  not  belong 
to  one  of  the  great  clans.  He  has  always 
given  great  attention  to  the  internal  de- 
velopment of  Japan,  and  Waseda  Univer- 
sity is  his  own  creation. 

Q. — How  long  did  the  Salandra 
ministry  last  after  Italy  de- 
clared war  on  Austria? 

A. — One  year.  Antonio  Salandra  (born 
1853)  had  become  Premier  in  March,  1914. 
He  had  been  professor  of  law  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Rome,  and  minister  in  several 
Italian  cabinets.  At  the  outbreak  of  the 
European  war  he  refused  to  follow  Ger- 
many and  Austria,  claiming  that  the 
Triple  Alliance  treaty  had  been  broken  by 
Austria.  From  this  position  he  pro- 
gressed toward  hostility  to  Austria  and 
alliance  with  the  Triple  Entente,  and,  de- 
spite the  opposition  of  Giolitti,  he  carried 
his  policy,  and  Italy  declared  war  on 
Austria  in  May,  1915.  He  resigned  as 
Premier  in  June,  1916. 

Q.— Who  is  Vittorio  Orlando? 

A. — He  was  made  Premier  of  Italy 
October  30,  1917.  He  was  born  in  1860  at 
Palermo,  became  professor  of  administra- 
tive law  in  the  University  of  Rome,  then 
a  deputy,  then  Minister  of  Public  In- 
struction in  Giolitti's  cabinet,  and  later 
Minister  of  the  Interior. 


War's  Who's  Who  in  Civilians 


313 


Q. — Who  signed  the  Austrian  ulti- 
matum to  Serbia? 

A. — Count  Leopold  Berchtold  (born 
1863),  Austro-Hungarian  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  1912-1915. 

Q. — Was  Tisza  a  reactionary? 

A. — He  was  an  uncompromising  old- 
time  government  official.  Count  Stephen 
Tisza  (born  1861)  was  a  son  of  a  fa- 
mous statesman  and  entered  politics  in 
1886,  becoming  Prime  Minister  in  1903. 
He  carried  through  the  Diet  new  and 
stringent  rules  of  procedure,  but  had  to 
resign  in  1905.  He  returned  to  office  in 
1913.  His  home  policy  has  been  one  of 
inexorable  Magyarization.  When  the  new 
King,  Charles  IV,  came  to  the  throne 
with  ideas  of  concessions  to  the  non-Mag- 
yar races,  the  continuance  of  Tisza  in 
power  became  an  impossibility,  and  he 
resigned  early  in  1917. 

Q. — Is  Count  Czernin  a  German? 

A. — No.  He  comes  from  Bohemian 
Czech  stock.  It  was  a  prominent  family 
and  Count  V.  zu  Chudenitz  Czernin  (born 
1857)  entered  the  diplomatic  service,  and 
in  1914  was  Austrian  minister  to  Rou- 
mania.  When  his  attempts  to  prevent 
Roumania  from  entering  the  war  failed, 
he  returned  to  Austria.  In  December, 
1916,  he  became  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs and  president  of  the  Joint  Council 
of  Ministers.  His  efforts  were  directed 
to  bringing  about  a^  peace  based  on  no 
annexations  and  no  indemnities,  working 
in  alliance  with  the  Center  party  in  Ger- 
many and  its  leader,  Mathias  Erzberger. 
He  is  the  advocate  of  better  treatment 
for  the  Slavic  nationalities  within  the 
empire. 

Q. — What  German  politician  caused 
the  Reichstag  resolution  for 
peace  without  annexations? 

A. — Mathias  Erzberger  (born  1875),  a 
member  of  the  German  Reichstag  and 
leader  of  the  Center  party  (Catholic 
party).  In  July,  1917,  after  a  visit  to 
Switzerland  and  Austria,  where  he  had 
interviews  with  Count  Czernin  and  Prince 
von  Biilow,  he  made  a  sensational  speech 
in  the  Reichstag  urging  the  conclusion  of 
peace  on  the  basis  of  no  annexations  and 
no  indemnities.  He  brought  the  Center 
party  into  opposition  to  the  policies  advo- 
cated by  Chancellor  Michaelis,  thus  bring- 
ing into  existence  an  opposition  majority 
in  the  Reichstag. 


Q. — Was  Viscount  Grey  a  Conser- 
vative? 

A. — No.  Sir  Edward  Grey,  Viscount  of 
Falloden,  and  British  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs  at  the  outbreak  of 
war,  was  a  Liberal  in  politics.  He  en- 
tered Parliament  in  1885,  was  under- 
secretary for  Foreign  Affairs,  1892-1895, 
and  in  1905  became  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs  in  the  Liberal  cab- 
inet. When  he  became  director  of  British 
foreign  policy,  England  was  shifting  her 
policy  of  isolation  with  regard  to  conti- 
nental affairs  to  one  of  participation  in 
them.  Grey  continued  this  policy  and 
strengthened  the  entente  with  France,  and 
negotiated  one  with  Russia.  In  1911  he 
supported  France  against  Germany  in 
Morocco,  but  in  1914  he  negotiated  a 
treaty  over  the  Bagdad  railway  which 
Germans  regarded  as  in  every  way  satis- 
factory. An  idealist  and  an  advocate  of 
internationalism  in  Europe,  he  strove 
during  the  Balkan  wars  to  provide  a 
settlement  that  should  be  just  and  satis- 
factory. In  1915  he  tried,  with  M. 
Sazonov,  to  revive  the  Balkan  League, 
and  after  the  failure  of  this  project  and 
the  collapse  of  Roumania,  he  left  the  cab- 
inet in  December,  1916.  He  was  raised 
to  the  peerage  in  1916. 

Q. — Did  the  British  appoint  a  Gov- 
ernor over  Egypt? 

A. — No.  After  they  deposed  the  Khe- 
dive, Abbas  II,  they  appointed  Hussein 
Kamil  Sultan  of  Egypt  on  December  19, 
1914.  He  is  the  son  of  the  Khedive  Is- 
mail (1863-1879). 

Q. — Who    was    the    first    Russian 
Premier  after  the  revolution? 

A. — Prince  George  E.  Lvov.  He  held 
office  only  from  March  to  June,  1917. 
He  had  been  prominent  in  the  zemstvos, 
and  had  organized  a  national  council  of 
zemstvo  representatives  which  took  over 
much  of  the  work  of  supplying  the  Rus- 
sian armies,  and  in  that  capacity  achieved 
a  great  success  and  won  public  confi- 
dence. He  resigned  in  July  chiefly  be- 
cause he  was  unwilling  to  concede  the  de- 
mand for  autonomy  put  forward  by  the 
Ukraine,  and  was  succeeded  by  Kerensky. 

Q. — Why  did  Kerensky  fail? 

A. — Chiefly,  apparently,  because  he  be- 
came distrusted  through  his  efforts  to 
continue  the  war.  The  Russian  people 
wanted  peace  and  suspected  him,  appar- 
ently, of  wishing  to  continue  war  for  the 
interest  of  other  nations.  His  failure  to 


Questions  and  Answers 


publish  the  secret  treaties  was  another 
factor  in  his  loss  of  the  public  confidence. 
The  Bolsheviki  published  these  treaties 
the  moment  they  gained  power. 

Alexander  F.  Kerensky  (born  1881) 
was  a  lawyer  who  had  done  much  in 
defending  workmen,  political  offenders, 
and  Jews.  He  entered  the  Duma  in  1912 
as  deputy  for  Saratov.  As  leader  of  the 
Socialist  Labor  party  he  was  prominent 
in  the  revolution  of  March,  1917.  ^  He 
gave  the  signal  for  the  Duma  to  continue 
its  sitting  when  the  Czar  ordered  its  dis- 
solution. Made  Minister  of  Justice  in 
the  Provisional  Government,  he  abol- 
ished the  death  penalty,  only  to  restore  it 
when  he  also  assumed  the  portfolio  of 
Minister  of  War.  On  July  22,  1917, 
Kerensky  became  Premier,  in  succession 
to  Prince  Lvov.  His  power  was  chal- 
lenged in  September,  1917,  by  General 
Korniloy,  and  in  November,  1917,  by  the 
Bolsheviki,  who  sought  an  immediate 
peace  and  the  application  of  the  princi- 
ples of  radical  socialism  to  questions  of 
property  in  land  and  industry.  The  move- 
ment resulted  in  the  downfall  of  Keren- 
sky's  Government. 

Q. — Is  "Trotzky"  the  Russian  lead- 
er's real  name? 

A. — No.  His  real  name  is  understood 
to  be  Leber  Bronstein.  The  story  of 
how  he  came  to  call  himself  Trotzky  is 
as  unique  as  the  man's  whole  career.  He 
was  imprisoned  in  Russia  for  revolution- 
ary propaganda  and  when  he  was  re- 
leased he  became  what  the  Russian  police 
authorities  called  an  "illegal  person,"  and 
so  found  it  necessary  to  hide  himself  un- 
der an  assumed  name.  His  jailer  had 
been  a  man  named  Trotzky — so  he  con- 
ceived the  original  idea  of  naming  him- 
self so.  This  is  his  own  story  as  he  told 
it  while  in  New  York. 

Q. — What  did  Trotzky  do  in  New 
York? 

A. — In  New  York  he  lived  with  his 
wife  and  two  children  in  three  rooms  in 
a  Bronx  tenement  and  earned  a  very 
modest  living  by  writing  ^for  the  Novy 
Mir,  the  Russian  Socialist  daily,  and 
speaking  at  Socialist  meetings.  He  did 
not  get  as  much  weekly  income  as  does 
the  average  American  unskilled  laborer. 

Q. — Did  anybody  in  America  ex- 
pect him  to  become  world- 
famous  ? 

A. — Apparently  not  even  his  friends. 
Those  who  knew  him  viewed  him  merely 


as  one  of  many  clever,  fiery,  devoted  so- 
cial revolutionaries.  That  he  would  en- 
gage prominently  in  the  Russian  revolu- 
tion was  expected  as  a  matter  of  course. 
That  he  would  become  a  world-figure 
seems  not  to  have  been  imagined  by  his 
friends;  perhaps  not  by  himself. 

Q. — Had  Trotzky  been  at  all  promi- 
nent in  Russia? 

A. — Yes.  In  the  1905  revolution  fol- 
lowing the  Russo-Japanese  war,  he  was 
made  President  of  the  first  Soldiers'  and 
Workingmen's  Council  in  Petrograd  as  a 
successor  to  the  original  incumbent.  He 
remained  president  until  the  defeat  of 
the  revolution.  Then  he  was  arrested 
and  exiled  to  Siberia.  From  there  he 
succeeded  in  making  his  escape,  and  went 
to  Switzerland. 

In  Switzerland  he  founded  a  Socialist 
paper  Prada  (The  Truth),  which  was 
printed  in  Russian  and  German  both. 

In  about  1910  he  went  to  Germany  but 
soon  found  it  advisable  to  flee,  as  arrest 
had  been  threatened. 

Q. — Where  was  he  when  the  war 
began  ? 

A. — He  was  jn  Vienna,  went  to  Serbia, 
returned  to  Switzerland,  and  then  went  to 
Paris  to  edit  a  Russian  Socialist  'paper 
there.  Of  his  further  career  he  said  him- 
self while  in  New  York: 

"When  a  Russian  division  of  troops 
(in  France)  mutinied  and  killed  the  gen- 
eral, I  addressed  a  severe  letter  of  criti- 
cism of  the  French  government  to  Jules 
Guesede,  a  Socialist  member  of  the  cab- 
inet, for  the  savage  punishment  that  was 
meted  out  to  the  Russian  troops.  This  so 
displeased  the  French  government  that  I 
was  ordered  out  of  France.  I  then  went 
back  to  Switzerland,  but  Switzerland 
feared  complications  with  the  Czaristic 
government  and  would  not  let  me  in.  I 
then  turned  to  Spain.  Spain  would  not 
have  me  either.  I  was  detained  at  Barce- 
lona, where  I  was  to  be  deported  to  Cuba, 
where  I  knew  no  one,  and  where  I  should 
have  found  myself  completely  stranded. 
Later  the  Spanish  government  decided  to 
let  me  go  where  I  pleased,  provided  only 
I  left  Spain.  Every  country  in  Europe 
practically  was  now  closed  to  me,  and  so 
I  turned  my  gaze  across  the  Atlantic, 
and  arrived  at  Ellis  Island  at  the  end  of 
December,  1916." 

Q. — Where  was  Trotzky  born  ? 

A. — He  was  born  in  1878  or  1879  in  a 
little  Jewish  colony  in  southern  Russia, 
in  the  government  of  Kherson.  When 


War's  Who's  Who  in  Civilians 


315 


about  fourteen  years  of  age  he  entered 
the  gymnasium  of  Chernigov,  and,  like 
most  of  the  passionate  youth  of  Russia, 
soon  became  interested  in  the  revolution- 
ary movements.  When  he  was  about  20 
years  old,  the  Russian  revolutionary 
movement  entered  one  of  its  active 
phases.  He  says  of  this  period : 
_  "I  plunged  into  propaganda^  but  con- 
tinued to  study  sociology,  political  econ- 
omy and  history  and  became  a  convinced 
Marxian  Socialist.  When  the  Russian 
Social  Democracy  split  up  into  two  sec- 
tions on  the  issue  of  tactics,  I  did  not 
identify  myself  with  either  the  Menshe- 
viki  or  the  Bolsheviki,  but  continued  to 
work  for  the  general  cause  of  overthrow 
of  Czarism  and  the  cause  of  Socialism. 
However,  I  leaned  strongly  to  the  rad- 
ical side.  In  other  words,  I  was  a  Men- 
shevik  of  the  extreme  left,  or  a  near- 
Bolshevik." 

Q. — Was  Lenine  paid  by  Germany? 

A. — The  charge  has  been  repeatedly 
made  and  as  often  withdrawn.  Nikolai 
Lenine  (born  1870)  became  the  chief 
leader  of  the  Russian  Bolsheviki.  His 
real  name  is  said  to  be  Vladmir  Utulya- 
nov.  In  the  early  nineties  he  became  a 
leader  of  the  radical  Social  Democrats  of 
Russia.  Elected  to  the  second  Duma 
after  the  revolution  of  1905,  he  was  ex- 
iled. At  the  beginning  of  the  war  he 
was  in  Cracow,  where  he  was  interned  as 
an  enemy  alien  but  released  and  allowed 
to  join  the  colony  of  radical  Russians  in 
Switzerland.  In  April,  1917,  he  reached 
Petrograd,  where  he  began  to  preach 
immediate  peace  and  general  confiscation 
of  land.  He  was  the  leader  of  the  first 
Bolsheviki  rising  in  Petrograd  in  July, 
1917.  After  that  movement  was  put  down 
he  remained  in  hiding,  part  of  the  time 
probably  in  Finland,  but  was  in  constant 
correspondence  with  the  Bolsheviki.  In 
November,  1917,  he  again  headed  an  up- 
rising of  the  Bolsheviki  in  Petrograd. 

Q. — Was  Liebknecht  expelled  from 
the  German  Socialist  party? 

A.— Yes.  He  was  expelled  January  13, 
1916.  Karl  Liebknecht,  born  1871,  is  the 
son  of  Wilhelm  Liebknecht,  one  of  the 
founders  of  modern  Socialism.  He  en- 
tered the  Reichstag  in  1912,  and  became 
noted  for  his  opposition  to  the  Govern- 
ment. In  August,  1914,  he  voted  in  the 
party  caucus  against  sustaining  the  Gov- 
ernment's demands  of  war  credits,  but  in 
the  Reichstag  he  voted  with  the  majority 
to  do  so,  in  accordance  with  the  Socialist 
theory  that  party  members  should  vote  as 


a  unit.  In  December,  1914,  he  openly 
voted  against  further  military  credits,  de- 
claring that  the  war  was  not  one  of  de- 
fense on  Germany's  part.  On  January  13, 
1916,  he  was  expelled  from  the  Socialist 
party  for  refusing  to  vote  with  them,  and 
in  May,  1916,  he  was  sentenced  to  four 
years  and  one  month  of  prison  for  a 
speech  delivered  May  I,  1916.  He  served 
eight  months  in  a  fortress  in  1907  for 
high  treason  in  having  written  a  pamphlet 
about  the  army. 

Q. — Was  the  founder  of  Socialism 
a  German? 

A. — Yes.  The  founder  of  modern  so- 
cialism was  Karl  Marx  (1818-1883),  a 
German  of  Jewish  ancestry. 

Being  expelled  from  Prussia,  after  liv- 
ing in  Paris  and  Brussels  he  settled  in 
London,  where  his  home  became  a  center 
for  fellow  exiles.  His  "Communist  Mani- 
festo," published^  few  days  before  the 
wave  of  revolutions  which  swept  over 
Europe  in  1848,  made  him  the  head  of 
the  International  Workingmen's  Associa- 
tion. This  "International"  had  an  active 
existence  from  1864  to  1870  in  uniting  the 
proletariat  of  Europe  against  capitalism. 

In  1859  Marx  published  the  first  vol- 
ume of  his  great  work,  "Capital."  It 
teaches  that  all  history  has  been  a  class 
struggle  of  patrician  against  plebs,  of 
noble  against  serf,  of  capitalist  against 
workingman.  In  the  class  struggle  of  the 
future,  as  the  rich  grow  richer  and  fewer, 
and  the  poor  grow  poorer,  more  numer- 
ous and  more  discontented,  the  poor  must 
surely  triumph  and  seize  all  instruments 
of  production. 

Marx  is  thus  the  main  inspiration  of  the 
Social  Democratic  party  in  Germany  and 
of  Socialist  parties  in  most  other  coun- 
tries. Leading  Socialists  to-day  recognize 
that  some  of  the  Marxian  doctrines  need 
revision. 

Q. — Who  is  Cardinal  Mercier? 

A. — He  was  president  of  the  great  uni- 
versity of  Louvain,  Archbishop  of  Ma- 
lines  until  he  was  made  a  Cardinal^  in 
1907,  and  is  a  scholar  of  high  distinction. 
When  Belgium  is  herself  again  the  mem- 
ory of  her  brave  Archbishop  will  stand 
with  that  of  her  heroic  king,  and  that  of 
her  stout  army,  enrolled  forever  in  his- 
toric fame. 

When  the  Germans  invaded  Belgium  he 
drew  world  notice  by  his  patriotic  labors 
and  courage,  especially  by  his  pastoral 
letter  of  Christmas,  1914.  For  this  he 
was  forbidden  by  the  German  authorities 


Questions  and  Answers 


to  leave  his  episcopal  residence,  an  act 
which  drew  on  Germany  the  protest  of 
the  Pope. 

Q. — Was  Lord  Northcliffe  always 
a  journalist? 

A. — He  began  poor  with  a  common- 
place little  weekly  paper  that  had  a  big 
circulation  among  certain  classes  in  Eng- 
land. He  is  now  the  owner  of  the  Daily 
Mail,  the  great  London  Times,  and  many 
other  publications.  His  name  is  Alfred 
Harmsworth.  He  was  born  in  1865  and 
was  in  America  as  the  head  of  various 
British  war  missions. 

Q. — Was  Nietzsche  a  leader  of 
popular  thought  in  Germany? 

A. — He  was  a  modern  philosopher  and 
the  large  public  knew  him  only  by  name, 
if  it  knew  him  at  all.  Friederich  Wil- 
helm  Nietzsche  dealt  in  abstract  thoughts 
in  which  large  publics  have  no  interest. 
Born  in  1844,  he  became  professor  of 
classical  philology  at  Basel,  1869.  Ill 
health  caused  his  resignation,  1870.  He 
was  comparatively  well  until  1888,  but  his 
vigorous  mind  broke  down  and  he  be- 
came hopelessly  insane  in  1889. 

Nietzsche  insists  that  individuals  of 
higher  culture  must  assert  themselves  for 
the  sake  of  civilization.  They  must  op- 
pose conventional  ideas  and  customs. 

It  is  very  difficult  for  students  of 
Nietzsche  to  understand  how  his  ideas 
can  be  held  as  supporting  the  theory^  of 
State  Power  and  national  aggrandize- 
ment. He  was  a  mystic  thinker,  not  a 
political  writer. 

Q. — Has  a  Pope  died  since  the  war 
began? 

A.— Yes.  Pope  Pius  X  (born  1835) 
died  on  August  20,  1914.  His  death  is 
said  to  have  been  hastened  by  the  out- 
break of  the  war.  On  August  19,  the  day 
before  his  death,  he  issued  an  appeal  for 
peace. 

Q.— Is  the  present  Pope  an  Ital- 
ian? 

A. — Yes.  Benedict  XV  Giacomo  della 
Chiesa  (born  1854)  and  pope  since  the 
death  of  Pius  X  in  1914,  was  formerly 
cardinal  archbishop  of  Bologna. 

Q. — Is  Count  Reventlow  a  German 
official ? 

A. — No.  Count  Ernst  zu  Reventlow  is 
a  furiously  Pan-German  extremist  jour- 
nalist (born  1871),  whose  writings  in  the 


Deutsche  Tages-Zfitung  have  been  distin- 
guished for  their  bitter  and  uncompro- 
mising hatred  of  the  United  States.  He 
has  written  a  book  on  German  foreign 
policy,  "Deutschlands  Auswartige  Poli- 
tik,  1888-1914." 

Q. — Is  Thomas,  the  French  poli- 
tician, a  Socialist? 

A. — He  is  one  of  the  leading  Socialists 
of  Europe.  He  is  the  son  of  a  baker 
and  became  a  Socialist,  joining  the  ex- 
treme party,  the  Unified  Socialists.  Suc- 
cessively he  was  elected  a  municipal  coun- 
cillor, mayor,  deputy  to  the  French 
Chamber.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  war  he 
started  as  sergeant,  then  became  a  lieu- 
tenant. Consulted  continually  by  Mille- 
rand,  Minister  of  War,  on  the  subject  of 
munitions,  he  was  made  undersecretary 
for  munitions.  In  the  reorganized  cab- 
inet of  December,  1916,  with  only  five 
members  in  the  wa.r  council,  he  was  made 
Minister  of  Munitions.  He  stood  strongly 
against  allowing  French  Socialist  dele- 
gates to  go  to  the  Stockholm  Conference 
in  1917.  He  resigned  in  September,  1917, 
because  Premier  Ribot  could  not  give  a 
definition  of  the  war  aims  of  France  sat- 
isfactory to  the  Unified  Socialists.  As 
the  latter  party  would  enter  no  ministry 
with  Ribot,  Thomas  was  not  included  in 
the  Painleve  ministry  of  September,  1917. 

Q.— What    has    made    Treitschke 

famous  ? 

A. — Germany's  opponents  found  abun- 
dant material  in  his  writings  to  prove 
German  lust  for  conquest.  He  was  a  his- 
torian, and  though  born  a  Saxon,  he  be- 
lieved in  Prussia  as  the  State  which  could 
best  unite  Germany.  He  became  profes- 
sor of  history  in  the  University  of  Berlin. 
His  lectures  were  crowded  with  students. 
His  pronouncements  on  German  policy  in 
the  Preussiche  Jahrbiicher  determinedi 
opinion.  He  wrote  history  that  glorifies 
the  rise  of  Prussia;  he  acclaimed  the 
union  of  Germany  and  the  annexation  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  as  he  saw  it  realized 
through  the  Franco-Prussian  war;  he  in- 
sisted upon  the  concentration  of  power  in 
the  German  State  and  on  the  dominant 
position  of  that  State  in  Europe.  He  was 
also  a  bitter  opponent  of  England. 

Q. — Is  Venizelos  a  Greek? 

A. — He  was  born  in  the  island  of 
Crete  in  1864.  He  first  entered  Greek 
politics  in  1909,  when  he  was  summoned 
by  the  king  and  helped  to  pilot  the  coun- 
try through  the  Balkan  wars.  From  the 
beginning  of  the  European  conflict  he  fa- 


Wars  Who's  Who  in  Civilians 


3*7 


vqred  the  cause  of  the  Allies,  and  urged 
King  Constantino  to  join  them.  But  the 
king  twice  dismissed  his  masterful  Pre- 
mier, who  at  last  set  up  a  Provisional 
Government  at  Saloniki  for  the  defense 
of  Greece.  After  the  abdication  of  Con- 
stantine  on  June  n,  1917,  Venizelos  again 
became  Premier  with  the  power  of  the 
Allies  behind  him. 

Q. — Was  von  Bernstorff  in  Amer- 
ica long  before  the  war? 

A. — Count  J.  H.  von  Bernstorff  (born 
1862)  was  in  this  country  for  six  years 
before  the  war,  having  been  appointed 
German  ambassador  to  the  United  States 
in  1008.  He  was  absent  from  his  post  at 
the  outbreak  of  the  war,  but  returned  at 
once.  He  was  handed  his  passports  on 
February  3,  1917,  immediately  after  Ger- 
many's announcement  of  unrestricted 
warfare.  Since  his  return  to  Germany  he 
has  been  appointed  ambassador  to  Tur- 
key in  succession  to  Dr.  yon  Kuhlmann, 
who  became  Foreign  Minister. 

Q. — What  ambassadors  and  min- 
isters were  in  Washington 
when  we  declared  war  on  Ger- 
many? 

A. — Belgium,  M.  E.  de  Cartier  de 
Marchienne ;  Brazil,  Senhor  Domicio  da 
Gama ;  China,  Dr.  V.  K.  Wellington  Koo ; 
Cuba,  Dr.  Carlos  de  Cespedes ;  France, 
M.  Jules  Jusserand ;  Great  Britain,  Sir 
Cecil  Spring-Rice;  Greece,  M.  A.  Vouros 
(charge);  Guatemala,  Senor  Don  Joa- 
quin  Mendez ;  Italy,  Count  Macchi  di  Cel- 
lere ;  Japan,  Mr.  Aimaro  Sato ;  Panama, 
Senor  Don  Belisario  Porras ;  Portugal, 
Viscount  d'Alte;  Russia,  Prof.  Boris 
Bakhmeteff;  Serbia,  Mr.  Lioubomir 
Michailovitch ;  Siam,  Phya  Prabha  Kara- 
vongse. 

Q. — Who  were  our  Ambassadors 
when  we  declared  war  on  Ger- 
many? 

A.— Belgium,  Brand  Whitlock;  Brazil, 
Edwin  V.  Morgan ;  China,  Paul  S. 
Reinsch ;  Cuba,  Wiftiam  E.  Gonzales ; 
France,  William  G.  Sharp;  Great  Britain, 
Walter  H.  Page ;  Greece,  Garrett  Drop- 
pers;  Guatemala,  William  H.  Leavell ; 
Italy,  Thomas  Nelson  Page ;  Japan, 
Roland  S.  Morris ;  Panama,  William  J. 
Price;  Portugal,  Thomas  H.  Birch;  Rou- 
mania,  Charles  J.  Vopicka;  Russia,  David 
R.  Francis ;  Serbia,  H.  Percival  Dodge 
(special  agent)  ;  Siam,  George  P.  Inger- 
soll. 


Q. — What     charges     were     made 
against  Bolo  Pasha? 

A. — Paul  Bolo,  better  known  as  Bplo 
Pasha,  was  formally  charged  with  having 
maintained  communication  with  the  ene- 
my in  Switzerland  in  1915  and  in  Paris 
the  same  year,  when  he  received  German 
money  from  Cavallini  to  further  the  paci- 
fist movement;  in  the  United  States  in 
1916,  for  having  received  through  Paven- 
stedt  and  the  Deutsche  Bank  German 
money  to  influence  the  French  newspa- 
pers, and  for  advancing  money  to  the 
director  of  the  Paris  Journal. 

He  was  sentenced  to  death  in  Febru- 
ary, 1918. 

Q. — How  old  are  the  English  lead- 
ers? 

A. — Lloyd  George  is  one  of  the  young 
men  of  the  cabinet,  being  only  53  when  he 
became  Prime  Minister.  He  was  a  year 
younger  than  W.  M.  Hughes,  ex-premier 
of  Australia,  who  was  54.  Asquith  was 
64,  Balfour  was  68,  Bonar  Law  58,  Cham- 
berlain 53,  McKenna  53,  Harcourt  54, 
Birrell  67,  Curzon  58  in  1916.  Herbert 
Samuel  was  the  youngest  Minister  in  the 
Asquith  Cabinet,  being  only  46. 

Q. — Who  was  Jean  de  Bloch? 

A. — The  author  of  a  famous  and  monu- 
mental work  on  war.  It  was  published 
sixteen  years  ago,  and  showed  that  mod- 
ern war  must  become  trench  fighting,  and 
that  entire  nations  must  inevitably  T>e- 
come  engaged.  His  forecasts  were  won- 
derfully accurate.  H.  G.  Wells  says  that 
he  was  much  studied  in  Germany  and  his 
lessons  were  taken  to  heart,  but  in  Eng- 
land few  knew  about  him.  He  was  a 
banker  of  Warsaw,  a  Russian  Jew.  He 
made  the  study  of  war  his  hobby,  and 
labored  hard  to  promote  the  cause  of  in- 
ternational arbitration,  holding  that  war 
entailed  such  ghastly  suffering  that  every- 
one who  could  do  so  should  work  to 
make  its  outbreak  impossible.  He  spent 
a  large  fortune  to  this  end.  He  died  a 
few  years  ago.  He  was  utterly  wrong, 
however,  in  a  chief  part  of  his  prophecy 
— that  the  monstrous  cost  of  modern  war 
would  make  a  long  war  impossible. 

Q. — Is  it  a  fact  that  Lord  Chelms- 
ford's  family  name  is  Thesiger? 

A. — The  present  Lord  Chelmsford  is 
the  third  baron.  His  grandfather  was 
Frederic  Thesiger,  twice  Lord  Chancellor 
of  England,  whose  brother,  Sir  Frederic 
Thesiger,  was  Naval  A.  D.  C.  to  Nelson 
at  Copenhagen.  The  first  baron's  father 


318 


Questions  and  Answers 


was  a  Saxon  who  had  migrated  to  Eng- 
land, where  he  became  secretary  to  Lord 
Rockingham.  The  German  strain  in  the 
present  Viceroy  of  India  is,  therefore, 
very  slight. 

Q. — Who  is  Henri  Bourassa? 

A. — He  is  a  French-Canadian,  and  one 
of  the  most  picturesque  figures  in  pub- 
lic life  in  the  Dominion.  He  is  an  anti- 
Imperial  Socialist,  editor  of  the  paper  L 
Devoir,  published  in  Montreal.  He  is  a 
member  of  Parliament,  and  has  a  very 
strong  and  devoted  following  of  French- 
•Canadians.  He  strongly  opposed  the 
raising  of  troops  in  Canada  during  the 
Boer  war,  and  campaigned  against  Ca- 
nadian participation  in  the  present  strug- 
gle. 

Q. — Who  is  Maximilian  Harden? 

A. — One  of  the  very  important  journal- 
ists and  publicists  of  Europe.  In  his 
youth  he  was  a  friend  and  to  some  extent 
a  confidant  of  Bismarck.  During  the  past 
decade  he  has  published  a  paper  Die  Zu- 
kunft  ("The  Future"),  which  has  voiced 
the  most  liberal  opinion  in  Germany. 
Some  years  ago  Die  Zukunft  became  fa- 
miliar to  the  whole  world  through  Har- 
den's  bold  attack  on  certain  highly  placed 


men  who  were  close  to  the  Kaiser.  Har- 
den triumphed,  despite  suits  for  libel  that 
were  brought  by  the  assailed  men.  The 
Kaiser  dismissed  them,  and  there  was  a 
great  political  clearance. 

Since  the  war  began  he  has  been  one 
of  the  few  writers  who  measurably  kept 
their  heads.  Almost  consistently  he  has 
warned  his  own  people  that  they  must 
•not  think  all  the  wrong-doing  is  on  the 
side  of  their  enemies. 

Q. — Is  Lord  Milner  a  German? 

A. — According  to  the  British  law,  that 
is  to  say,  jus  soli,  he  would  be  so  re- 
garded as  he  was  born  in  Bonn  in  Ger- 
many. According  to  German  or  French 
law,  that  is  to  say,  jus  sanguinis,  he  would 
be  regarded  as  an  Englishman,  for  his 
father  was  British  in  the  eyes  of  that  law, 
although,  according  to  English  law,  he, 
too,  was  a  German.  Lord  Milner's  grand- 
father was  an  Englishman  but  he  mar- 
ried in  Germany  and  Lord  Milner's  father 
was  born  at  Bonn  on  the  Rhine.  His 
mother  was  English. 
^  He  went  to  Africa  as  High  Commis- 
sioner and  Governor  of  Cape  Colony  in 
1897,  and  remained  there  as  High  Com- 
missioner and  Administrator  of  the  con- 
quered Transvaal  and  Orange  Free  State 
until  he  retired  in  1905. 


THE  WORKERS 


Q. — What  is  the  biggest  American 
labor  organization? 

A. — The  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
formed  in  1881.  It  is  a  federation,  or 
union,  of  109  national  and  international 
unions,  each  of  which  maintains  its  own 
individual  existence,  while  giving  up  cer- 
tain powers  to  the  common  head. 

The  Knights  of  Labor,  who  had  sought 
to  merge  all  the  separate  unions  into  one 
national  organization,  gave  way  before 
the  federation  movement  in  the  years 
1885-1890.  A  few  important  national 
unions,  such  as  the  four  railroad  brother- 
hoods, and  the  national  window-glass 
workers,  are  not  affiliated  with  the  federa- 
tion. The  paid-up  membership  of  the 
federation  is  now  approximately  2,070,000. 
Its  headquarters  are  in  Washington,  D. 
C,  its  president  is  Samuel  Gompers,  its 
secretary  Frank  Morrison,  and  its  official 
organ  the  American  Federationist. 

Q. — Do  most  American  working- 
men  belong  to  labor  unions? 

A. — No.  There  are  about  30,000,000 
men  in  the  United  States  who  earn  their 
living  with  their  hands.  Less  than  3,000,- 
ooo  are  affiliated  with  labor  unions. 

Q. — Has  American  labor  been  con- 
scripted? 

A. — No.  There  has  been  talk  of  it,  not 
officially,  but  among  some  factions  repre- 
senting various  opinions,  about  the  best 
way  to  conduct  war.  The  workingmen 
have  answered  the  suggestion  with  the 
general  reply  that  if  labor  is  conscripted, 
capital  also  must  be  conscripted. 

Q. — Has  any  state  passed  a  com- 
pulsory labor  law? 

A. — Yes.  Maryland  and  West  Virginia 
recently  passed  laws  providing  that  every 
man  must  work  at  least  thirty-six  hours 
a  week,  and  New  York  and  New  Jersey 
have  enacted  that  idlers,  rich  or  poor, 
shall  be  fined  and  jailed.  This,  it  must 
be  noted,  is  not  "conscription  of  labor." 
It  is  conscription  of  idle  persons,  in  so  far 
as  it  can  be  called  "conscription"  at  all. 

Q. — What  is  sabotage? 

A. — The  organized  hampering  of  pro- 
duction by  slack  work,  the  skillful  dis- 


abling of  machinery,  or  the  publication  of 
trade  secrets  as  a  part  of  the  "class 
struggle"  between  employing  classes  and 
labor.  The  practice  first  came  into  prom- 
inence in  France  in  1895,  and  it  was  for- 
mally approved  at  the  Congress  of  the 
French  General  Confederation  of  Labor 
in  1897,  and  the  approval  was  reaffirmed 
at  the  Congress  of  1900. 

Q. — What  was  the  origin  of  the 
word  boycott? 

.A. — Ireland  gave  it  to  us,  as  she  has 
given  so  many  expressive  words.  Parnell 
in  1880  advised  the  people  to  punish  a  man 
for  taking  a  farm  from  which  another 
"had  been  evicted  "by  isolating  him  from 
his  kind  as  if  he  were  a  leper  of  old." 
The  first  victim  of  the  new  system  was 
the  agent  of  Lord  Erne,  an  absentee 
landlord,  who  had  estates  in  Mayo.  This 
agent  refused  to  accept  rents  at  figures 
fixed  by  the  tenants,  and  was  treated  ac- 
cording to  Parnell's  advice.  His  servants 
were  forced  to  leave  him,  his  crops  were 
left  to  rot  in  the  fields,  even  the  post  and 
telegraph  were  interfered  with.  The 
agent's  name  was  Captain  Boycott,  and 
the  name  of  the  first  victim  was  given  to 
the  system. 

Q. — How  many  motor  cars  were 
produced  in  the  United  States 
in  1916? 

A. — Motor  vehicles  produced:  1916, 
1,617,708;  1915,  892,618.  Passenger  cars 
sold:  1916,  1,525,578;  1915,  842,229.  Mo- 
tor trucks  sold:  1916,  92,130;  1915,  50,369. 
Retail  value  of  motor  vehicles  sold :  1916, 
$1,088,028,273;  1915,  $691,778,950.  Aver- 
age price  of  passenger  cars :  1916,  $605  ; 
1915,  $672.  Number  of  cars  and  trucks 
exported  first  ten  months:  1916,  67,616; 
I9I5.  53,380.  Value  of  cars  and  trucks  ex- 
ported first  ten  months :  1916,  $100,147,- 
636;  1915,  $94,434,432.  It  is  estimated  that 
in  California  there  is  one  motor  car  to 
eleven  of  the  population. 

Q. — Are  women  doing  men's  work 
in  all  belligerent  countries? 

A.— -In  England,  France,  Germany  and 
Austria,  women  have  largely  replaced 
men  in  many  industries.  In  Russia  and 
Italy  women  always  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  working  in  the  fields  and  in 
certain  other  manual  occupations,  and. 


319 


320 


Questions  and  Answers 


since  the  war,  they  have  been  more  than 
ever  responsible  for  the  sowing  and  gath- 
ering in  of  the  crops. 

Q. — What  work  do  the  women  do? 

A. — In  England  half  a  million,  at  least, 
are  working  in  munition  factories.  They 
act  in  the  entire  country  as  tram  and  bus 
conductors,  taxi  drivers,  chauffeurs  and 
elevator  operators.  In  addition  they  do 
heavier  work,  cart  and  deliver  coal,  act 
as  laborers  in  many  districts,  and,  in  Bir- 
mingham, for  instance,  have  replaced  men 
as  road-workers.  They  were  urged  to 
work  in  the  fields,  but  the  response  was 
not  as  great  as  was  hoped.  In  France 
and  Germany  women  work  in  the  muni- 
tion factories,  and,  in  fact,  in  all  manner 
of  occupations  usually  reserved  exclus- 
ively for  men. 

Q. — Do  English  women  munition 
workers  get  men's  wages? 

A. — "Equal  pay,  equal  work,"  has  been 
the  formula  adopted  ever  since  the  Min- 
ister of  Munitions  took  over  the  factories. 
Women  were  all  paid  at  the  same  piece 
rates  as  men,  and  a  time  rate  was  fixed  at 
£  I  ($4.87)  a  week.  The  original  arrange- 
ment has  been  slightly  amended  since,  and 
provides  for  the  payment  of  £i  for  a  48- 
hour  week  to  women  of  eighteen  years 
and  over,  and  an  extra  6-pence  (about 
12  cents)  an  hour  for  all  additional  work. 

This  rate,  however,  applies  only  to  the 
national  factories,  and  has  not  been  ex- 
tended to  the  private  establishments, 
where,  apparently,  women  have  been 
working  on  munitions  of  war  for  5  and  6 
cents  an  hour.  In  the  national^  factories 
the  rate  is  8  and  9  cents.  It  is  pointed 
out,  however,  by  the  National  Federa- 
tion of  Women  Workers  that  a  pound  a 
week  is,  according  to  pre-war  standards, 
worth  now  only  $3.25  a  week,  and  it  is 
being  paid  for  work  formerly  done  by 
men,  and  admittedly  of  vital  importance 
to  the  nation.  In  a  recent  inquiry  it 
came  out  that  in  many  branches  of  muni- 
tion making  not  under  direct  Govern- 
ment control  women  were  only  getting 
$3.37  a  week. 

Q. — How  many  German  women  are 
in  industries? 

A. — Helferich,  German  Minister  for 
Internal  Affairs,  gave  figures  in  the 
Reichstag  concerning  the  employment  of 
women  in  Germany.  He  did  not  men- 
tion the  actual  numbers,  merely  giving 
percentages.  On  July  I,  1914,  the  pro- 
portion of  women  employed  in  the  elec- 


trical industries  was  24  per  cent ;  on 
July  I,  1915,  it  was  55  per  cent.  In  other 
industries  the  respective  figures  were : — 
Chemicals,  7  per  cent  to  23  per  cent ;  met- 
allurgy and  engineering,  7  per  cent  to  19 
per  cent;  textures,  54  per  cent  to  64  per 
cent;  wood-working,  15  per  cent  to  26 
per  cent ;  clothing,  53  per  cent  to  64  per 
cent;  agriculture,  32  per  cent  to  45  per 
cent ;  building,  3  per  cent  to  9  per  cent. 
There  are  probably  far  more  women  now 
employed,  as  a  general  mobilization  of 
the  German  population  occurred  in  1916. 

Q. — Have  Chinese  workmen  been 
sent  to  France? 

A. — They  have  been  there  some  time, 
and,  according  to  neutral  papers,  have 
given  great  satisfaction.  One  hundred 
thousand  were  originally  contracted  for, 
the  arrangement  having  been  made 
through  the  Chinese  banks  at  a  fixed  rate 
per  head. 

Q. — How    many     countries    have 
adopted  daylight  saving? 

A. — Great  Britain  was  the  first  to  pro- 
pose the  scheme.  William  Willet,  a  Lon- 
don builder,  advocated  it  for  years,  but 
Parliament  always  blocked  the  bill.  Ger- 
many adopted  the  principle  on  May  I, 
1916.  Great  Britain  followed  suit  on 
May  21,  and  most  European  countries 
then  put  the  clock  forward  an  hour.  Hol- 
land, having  such  close  trade  relations 
with  Germany,  quickly  copied  her,  and 
Austria-Hungary  did  the  same.  Italy 
came  into  line  on  June  3.  The  Danes 
were,  however,  the  first  to  follow  Ger- 
many, putting  the  clock  forward  on 
May  15. 

Q. — When  did  America  adopt  it? 

A. — The  bill  to  save  daylight  was  passed 
by  Congress  on  March  15,  1918.  It  pro- 
vided that  at  2  A.  M.  of  the  last  Sunday 
of  March  in  each  year  the  clocks  should 
be  advanced  one  hour  and  at  2  A.  M.  of 
the  last  Sunday  in  October  they  were  to 
be  set  back  again  one  hour,  and  thus  re- 
turned to  the  old  time  for  the  months  of 
short  days.  Five  time-zones  were  estab- 
lished to  conform  with  the  zones  for 
standard  time  that  had  always  existed. 

Q. — Are  the  Germans  working  the 
Belgian  and  French  mines? 

A. — Dr.  Dillon  says  they  are,  and  that 
no  fewer  than  40,000  Belgian  and  French 
miners  are  doing  the  work.  Dutch  re- 
ports confirm  this,  and  state  that  all  the 


The  Workers 


321 


coal  is  sent  to  Germany.  Timber  is  also 
being  cut  from  the  Belgian  forests.  The 
figures  as  to  the  Belgian  labor  employed 
have  been  exceedingly  conflicting.  Be- 
fore the  war  about  200,000  work  people 
had  been  regularly  engaged  in  coal  and 
iron  mining  and  quarrying. 


Q. — What     wages     are     paid     in 
China? 

A. — J.  P.  Donovan,  in  The  Empire  Re- 
view, says :  "Although  the  cost  of  labor 
has  risen  in  China,  as  in  other  countries, 
during  the  past  twenty  years,  it  is  still 
low  when  compared  with  what  is  paid  for 
the  same  kind  in  either  Europe  or  Amer- 
ica. Ordinary  laborers  receive  from  125. 
to  i8s.  a  month  ($3  to  $4.50),  while  the 
wages  of  skilled  laborers  and  mechanics 
rarely  exceed  from  £2  to  £3  ($10  to  $15) 
a  month.  In  the  Hanyang  steel  works, 
which  was  started  by  the  Viceroy  Chang- 
Chih-tung  and  where  some  5,000  men  are 
employed,  ordinary  laborers  receive  about 
$3  a  month.  Women  reelers  in  the  silk 
factories  in  Shanghai  earn  less  than  25 
cents  a  day  for  eleven  hours'  work.  Gen- 
erally speaking,  laborers  in  the  interior 
are  paid  6d.  to  gd.  (12  to  18  cents)  a  day, 
for  which  they  work  from  ten  to  twelve 
hours." 


Q. — Is   there   shortage   of   British 
miners  ? 

A. — The  number  of  persons  employed 
in  the  mines  in  May,  1915,  was  953,642,  a 
decrease  of  180,104  from  the  number  em- 
ployed during  the  period  January-July, 
1914.  The  output  of  coal  for  the  year 
1913  was  287,411,869  tons;  in  1914,  265,- 
643,030  tons;  in  1915,  there  was  a  further 
decline,  the  production  being  253,179,446 
tons,  which  made  34,232,423  tons  less  in 
1915  than  in  1913.  In  1913,  73,400,118 
tons  were  exported;  in  1914,  70,561,402 
tons;  in  1915,  50,576,078  tons;  and  in 
1916,  46,112,155  tons.  These  totals  in- 
clude the  coal  taken  on  steamers  for  their 
own  use.  Since  Italy,  Spain,  Greece  and 
Norway  rely  almost  entirely  upon  coal 
from  overseas,  it  is  evident  that  nothing 
like  the  requirements  of  these  countries 
have  been  met  since  the  war  began.  Ger- 
many used  to  send  coal  to  some  of  these 
places,  and  France  used  to  produce  what 
she  wanted.  All  must  now  look  to  Eng- 
land or  to  America,  and  the  above  fig- 
ures show  that  Great  Britain  exported 
27,000,000  tons  less  in  1916  than  in  1913, 
so  they  must  have  gone  very  short. 


Q. — How  did  England  settle  the  big 
1916  railway  dispute? 

A. — The  men  asked  for  an  increase  of 
to  shillings  a  week  on  all  wages,  basing 
their  demand  on  the  rise  in  the  cost  of 
living.  They  obtained  exactly  half  what 
they  asked  for,  but  in  the  form  of  a  war 
bonus,  not  as  increase  of  wages.  In 
October,  1915,  a  war  bonus  of  5  shillings 
was  paid  by  the  railway  companies. 
Since  then  it  has  been  increased  to  10 
shillings.  The  increase  means  that  the 
men  are  now  getting  on  the  average  a 
third  more  in  wages  than  they  did  before 
the  war  started;  but  as  the  cost  of  food 
has  increased  more  than  100  per  cent, 
and  the  general  cost  of  living  has  gone 
up  nearly  75  per  cent,  the  men  declare 
that  they  actually  are  worse  off  now  than 
when  the  war  began.  The  Government, 
by  the  way,  has  to  pay  the  bonus  of  10 
shillings  a  week.  The  companies  do  not, 
although  they  made  the  arrangement  with 
the  men. 

Q. — On  what  terms  did  the  English 
Government  take  over  the  rail- 
ways? 

A. — The  agreement  made  by  the  Board 
of  Trade  was  that  the  Government  leased 
the  railways  from  the  twenty-nine  com- 
panies concerned  for  the  period  of  the 
war  on  the  basis  of  their  net  earnings  in 
1913,  less  i-2l/2  per  cent  of  the  war  bonus 
granted  to  the  men,  and  that  out  of  this 
rental  the  companies  had  to  meet  any 
addition  to  their  interest  charges. 

Q. — How  many  women  are  em- 
ployed in  British  industries? 

A. — Omitting  domestic  servants  and 
women  at  work  in  military,  naval  and 
Red  Cross  hospitals,  it  is  estimated  that 
nearly  5,000,000  women  are  directly  em- 
ployed in  various  occupations  in  Great 
Britain. 

Q. — How  many  were  employed  be- 
fore the  war? 

A. — About  3,750,000.  Since  the  war 
1,250,000  men  have  been  directly  replaced 
by  women. 

Q. — How  many  war  factories  are 
there  in  Great  Britain? 

A. — In  December,  1916,  the  Minister  of 
Munitions  announced  that  the  total  num- 
ber of  controlled  establishments  in  the 
United  Kingdom  was  4,585. 


SPIES,  TRAITORS  AND  ALIEN  ENEMIES 


Q. — What  is  a  spy? 

A.— Article  82  of  the  United  States  Ar- 
ticles of  War  says:  "Any  person  who  in 
time  of  war  shall  be  found  lurking  or 
acting  as!  a  spy  in  or  about  any  of  the 
fortifications,  posts,  quarters  or  encamp- 
ments of  any  of  the  armies  of  the  United 
States,  or  elsewhere,  shall  be  tried  by  a 
court-martial  or  by  a  military  commission 
and  shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  suffer 
death." 

Hague  Rule  XXIX,  and  the  "Rules  of 
Land  Warfare"  (General  Staff,  U.  S.  A., 
1914)  define  a  spy  as  a  person  who  clan- 
destinely or  on  false  pretences  endeavors 
to  obtain  information  with  the  intention 
of  communicating  it  to  the  hostile  party. 

Soldiers  in  their  own  uniform  who  pen- 
etrate hostile  lines  for  information  are 
not  considered  spies.  They  are  spies  if 
they  wear  false  uniform  or  any  disguise. 

Q. — Is  an  enemy  alien  that  gives 
information  a  spy? 

A. — Yes.  Any  person,  no  matter  what 
the  nationality  may  be,  is  guilty  of  spying 
if  he  tries  to  send  information  out  of  the 
country,  directly  or  indirectly,  with  intent 
of  aiding  the  enemy. 

Technically,  it  might  be  held  that  the 
information  must  be  of  military  nature; 
but  in  this  war  there  has  come  such  an 
intimate  and  intricate  inter-relation  of 
military,  industrial  and  political  matters, 
that  the  tendency  would  be  to  charge  that 
even  political  information  was  so  designed 
to  give  "aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy" 
that  it  comes  under  either  espionage  or 
treason. 


Q. — Is  a  man  who  is  confessedly  a 
German  officer  a  spy? 

A. — Not  if  he  has  informed  the  govern- 
ment promptly  and  voluntarily  of  his 
presence  and  rank.  If  he  conceals  the 
fact,  and  is  arrested  subsequently  and 
charged  with  being  a  spy,  it  still  would 
be  necessary  to  prove  that  he  collected 
information  with  intent  to  send  it  to  his 
army.  But  the  concealment  would  make 
a  grave  count  to  begin  with,  and  would, 
no  doubt,  be  held  as  presumption  in  it- 
self that  he  was  a  spy,  because  one  of 
the  "acid  tests"  of  a  spy  is  his  clandes- 
tine character. 


Q. — Is  a  woman  of  German  birth 
who  accidentally  learns  some- 
thing of  importance  and  tells 
it,  a  spy? 

A. — It  depends  on  the  person  to  whom 
she  tells  it,  and  her  intent  in  telling  it, 
and,  of  course,  the  nature  of  the  infor- 
mation. If  her  intention  in  telling  it  is 
to  convey  information  of  value  to  the 
enemy,  she  is  guilty  of  a  crime  that  is 
grave  in  war,  whether  it  be  committed 
by  an  alien  or  a  native. 

The  fact  that  she  obtained  the  infor- 
mation accidentally  would  not  in  itself 
necessarily  clear  her  from  the  charge  of 
being  a  spy.though  it  might  be  accepted 
as  presumptive  evidence  in  her  favor. 

If  she  obtained  the  information  acci- 
dentally and  simply  repeated  it  through 
the  habit  of  gossip,  she  would  be  in  the 
same  category  as  any  American-born 
woman  guilty  of  the  same  thing,  but  she 
would  have  a  more  difficult  task  to  clear 
herself  of  suspicion. 

Q. — What  actions  lay  a  person 
open  to  being  shot  as  a  spy? 

A. — Any  activity  that  would  tend  to 
gather  information  valuable  to  an  enemy 
will  subject  a  person  in  time  of  war  to 
the  charge  of  being  a  spy.  Within  a 
military  zone  actions  that  might  be  quite 
innocent  elsewhere  often  are  highly  sus- 
picious, and  the  apprehended  person  will 
have  a  much  harder  time  explaining 
these  actions  than  he  would  have  out- 
side of  such  military  zones.  This  is  not 
an  unfair  rule  in  itself,  for  civilians  and 
even  soldiers,  who  are  not  called  by  ac- 
tual business  into  such  a  zone,  have  no 
business  there. 

The  almost  universal  military  punish- 
ment for  spying  is  death ;  and  the  death 
sentence  may  be  inflicted  even  if  a  spy 
has  not  succeeded  in  getting  any  infor- 
mation or  in  transmitting  it  to  the  enemy. 

Q. — Are  spies  shot  without  trial? 

A. — The  Hague  Conventions  provide 
that  a  spy,  even  when  taken  in  the  act, 
"should  not  be  punished"  without  previ- 
ous trial.  If  a  spy  happens  to  be  caught 
by  soldiers  engaged  at  the  moment  in 
fighting  for  their  lives,  his  chances 
probably  are  not  particularly  good.  If, 
however,  a  spy  is  brought  before  officers, 
he  should,  and  as  a  rule  does,  get  a 


322 


Spies,  Traitors  and  Alien  Enemies 


323 


trial.  Among  troops  engaged  in  active 
operations,  however,  the  method  of  trial 
is  pretty  swift  and  not  very  lenient. 

Q. — What  is  a  court-martial? 

A. — It  is  a  military  court,  composed 
wholly  of  soldiers — army  officers  in  army 
matters  and  navy  officers  in  naval  mat- 
ters. In  peace-times  a  court-martial 
usually  is  assembled  with  much  care  and 
full  time  is  given  to  the  case.  In  war, 
courts-martial  are  assembled  quickly,  and 
the  manner  of  trial  generally  depends  on 
the  conditions  at  the  given  moment,  the 
amount  of  time  at  the  disposal  of  the 
court,  the  attitude  of  the  members,  etc. 
The  accused  may  have  military  counsel 
assigned  to  him  by  the  court,  but  he  has 
not  the  right  to  demand  counsel  of  his 
own  selection.  A  summary  court-martial 
may  last  only  a  few  minutes. 

A  fundamental  difference  in  principle 
between  courts-martial  and  civil  courts 
is  this :  a  civil  court  is  supposed  in  law 
to  look  after  the  interest  of  the  defend- 
ant very  carefully.  He  is  presumed  to  be 
innocent  until  convicted.  A  court-mar- 
tial, while  it  is  expected  to  be  just,  looks 
after  the  interests  of  its  own  army  first, 
second  and  all  the  time. 

Q. — Can  a  person  giving  informa- 
tion to  his  own  government  be 
shot  as  a  spy? 

A. — Yes.  He  may  be  punished  either 
as  a  spy  or  as  a  "war  traitor,"  according 
to  the  nature  of  the  case.  Paragraph  204 
of  the  U.  S.  A.  "Rules  of  Land  War- 
fare" says:  "If  the  citizen  or  subject  of 
a  country  or  place  invaded  or  conquered, 
gives  information  to  his  own  government, 
from  which  he  is  separated  by  the  hos- 
tile army,  or  if  he  gives  information  to 
the  army  of  his  government,  he  is  a  war 
traitor." 

Q. — What  is  the  difference  be- 
tween a  spy  and  a  "war 
traitor"? 

A.— The  term  was  devised  by  soldiers 
to  fit  the  case  of  the  inhabitants  of  an 
invaded  district  who  try  to  give  news  to 
their  own  army  or  government.  These 
people  obviously  lack  the  "clandestine" 
character  of  spies,  since  they  have  not 
entered  the  invading  lines  purposely,  but 
are  caught  within  them  against  their 
will. 

To  meet  this  case,  the  world's  legal 
military  minds  have  devised  the  crime  of 
"war  treason."  Any  information,  aid  or 
comfort  that  the  inhabitants  of  invaded 
districts  give  to  their  own  side,  and  any- 


thing they  may  do  to  hamper  or  injure 
the  invaders  is  "war  treason."  They  may 
not  even  offer  voluntarily  to  serve  as 
guides  to  their  own  government's  army. 

The  punishments  for  "war  treason"  are 
the  same  as  for  spying.  A  "war  traitor" 
usually  is  shot  pretty  summarily. 

Q. — Is  spying  a  crime  in  peace- 
times? 

A. — It  is,  but  it  is  usually  limited 
wholly  to  such  spying  as  actually  deals 
with  military  secrets.  Foreign  officers 
and  soldiers,  for  instance,  may  move 
freely  in  another  country,  during  peace- 
time, without  wearing  uniforms  or  other- 
wise declaring  themselves,  and  they  will 
not  be  considered  spies  unless  they  actu- 
ally try  to  get  military  secrets  either  by 
subterfuge  or  by  corrupting  somebody. 

In  time  of  war,  on  the  contrary,  any 
officer  or  soldier  of  a  belligerent  power 
caught  in  the  territory  of  another  bel- 
ligerent, in  civilian  clothes,  would  be  con- 
sidered as  being  in  disguise ;  and  being 
in  disguise  is  one  of  the  important  counts 
in  declaring  men  guilty  of  being  spies. 

Q. — Is  spying  in  peace-times  pun- 
ished by  death? 

A. — It  may  be,  but  it  very  rarely  is. 
All  the  European  governments  have 
more  or  less  elaborate  "secret  service" 
organizations  for  getting  military  secrets, 
and  for  that  reason  spy-trials  are  han- 
dled rather  delicately  in  times  of  peace, 
and  the  most  usual  punishment  is  a  term 
in  prison. 

Some  time  before  the  big  war,  Great 
Britain  caught  some  German  army  officers 
and  Germany  caught  some  British  army 
officers  in  the  act  of  gathering  military 
information.  Both  parties  were  in  civilian 
garb,  and  each  government  tried  its  cap- 
tives with  astonishing  politeness  and 
caution.  The  men  were  sentenced  in 
each  case  to  fairly  long  prison  terms, 
but  it  was  generally  understood  by  both 
nations  that  the  sentences  were  to  be  car- 
ried out  without  subjecting  the  prisoners 
to  the  onus  of  felons,  and  there  were 
guarded  suggestions  that  they  might,  in 
fact,  be  released  as  soon  as  possible. 

Q. — Is  a  person  who  tries  to  get 
commercial  and  other  non- 
military  secrets  in  peace-times 
a  spy? 

A. — No.  The  laws  of  all  nations 
against  espionage  cover  only  espionage 
for  military  purposes.  A  man  trying  to 
get  commercial  secrets  may  render  him- 


324 


Questions  and  Answers 


self  liable  to  punishment  if  he  corrupts 
government  officials,  or  private  em- 
ployees, or  otherwise  tries  wrongfully  to 
get  information,  but  that  is  a  matter  of 
common  law  that  has  nothing  to  do  with 
espionage. 


As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  governments 
keep  commercial  and  consular  agents  in 
the  territory  of  other  nations  to  gather 
commercial  and  industrial  information, 
and  this  is  done  not  only  openly  but  by 
mutual  consent 


RECORD  OF  EVENTS 
IN  THE  GREAT  WAR 


RECORD    OF    EVENTS    IN    THE   GREAT   WAR 


1914 

June  28. — The  Austrian  Archduke,  Fran- 
cis Ferdinand,  is  murdered  at  Serajevo, 
Bosnia,  by  a  Serbian. 

July  23. — Austria-Hungary  sends  an  ulti- 
matum to  Serbia. 

July  25. — Serbia  agrees  to  most  of  the 
demands  of  Austria-Hungary,  and  asks  ar- 
bitration of  the  rest. 

July  28. — Austria-Hungary  declares  war 
on  Serbia. 

July  31. — Germany  demands  that  Russia 
cease  its  mobilization. 

August  1. — Germany  declares  war  on 
Russia. 

August  2. — German  troops  enter  the 
neutral  Duchy  of  Luxemburg. 

Belgium  refuses  free  passage  of  Ger- 
man troops. 

August  3. — Germany  declares  war  on 
France. 

German  troops  enter  Belgium,  meeting 
with  stubborn  resistance. 

August  4. — Great  Britain  declares  war 
on  Germany. 

August  6. — Austria-Hungary  declares 
war  on  Russia. 

August  8. — The  first  British  troops  are 
landed  in  France;  French  troops  cross 
the  German  frontier  into  Alsace-Lorraine. 

August  15-23. — French  armies  are  forced 
to  retire  after  engagements  at  Morhange 
(Alsace-Lorraine)  and  at  Neufchateau  and 
Charleroi  (Belgium). 

August  16. — Japan  demands  the  German 
possessions  at  Kiau-chau,  China. 

August  19. — The  German  Army  occupies 
Liege,  having  been  delayed  two  weeks  by 
Belgian  resistance. 

August  20. — Germans   occupy   Brussels. 

August  23.— The  British  at  Mons  (Bel- 
gium), holding  left  wing,  are  attacked  by 
a  superior  force  and  compelled  to  join  in 
retreat  of  whole  Allied  line. 

Japan  declares  war  on  Germany. 

August  26 — Louvain  is  destroyed  as  pun- 
ishment for  an  alleged  attack  by  Belgian 
citizens  on  German  troops. 

August  28. — British  and  German  war- 
ships meet  in  the  first  naval  engagement 
in  Heligoland  Bight;  five  small  German 
vessels  are  destroyed. 

A  Russian  army  invading  East  Prussia 
is  disastrously  defeated  at  Tannenberg. 

September  2. — A  Russian  army  invading 
the  Austrian  province  of  Galicia  occupies 
Lemberg  after  decisively  defeating  the 
Austrians. 

September  3. — The  seat  of  the  French 
Government  is  transferred  to  Bordeaux. 


September  5. — Great  Britain,  France, 
and  Russia  agree  not  to  conclude  separate 
peace. 

September  6-10.— In  the  Battle  of  the 
Marne,  the  French  defeat  the  Germans, 
stop  the  march  toward  Paris  and  force  a 
hasty  retreat. 

September  12. — The  German  retreat  is 
halted  at  River  Aisne,  from  Soissons  to 
Argonne  forest;  trench  warfare  begins. 

September  20. — The  "race  to  the  sea"  is 
begun — the  rival  armies  in  France  endeav- 
oring to  turn  each  other's  western  flank, 
and  the  intrenched  line  mounts  northward 
from  the  Oise  to  the  North  Sea. 

The  famous  Cathedral  at  Rheims, 
France,  is  wrecked  by  German  guns. 

September  22. — Three  British  cruisers 
are  sunk  in  the  North  Sea  by  a  German 
submarine. 

October  9. — Antwerp  is  occupied  by 
Germans  after  ten  days'  bombardment;  the 
Belgian  army  escapes. 

October  16-28.— In  the  Battle  of  the 
Yser,  German  attempt  to  sweep  down 
Belgian  coast  is  blocked  chiefly  by  flood- 
ing of  rivers  and  canals. 

October  20-November  11. — The  first 
Battle  of  Ypres  results  in  loss  of  terri- 
tory by  British  and  French,  but  in  fail- 
ure of  Germany's  attempt  to  reach  Chan- 
nel ports. 

October  29. — Turkey  enters  the  war  as 
an  ally  of  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary, 
bombarding  Russian  ports  on  Black  Sea. 

November  1. — A  naval  engagement  is 
fought  off  coast  of  Chile;  two  British 
cruisers  are  sunk  by  the  German  fleet. 

November  7. — The  Japanese  capture 
Tsing-tau,  the  fortified  portion  of  German 
possessions  at  Kiau-chau. 

November  9.— The  British  War  Secre- 
tary announces  that  1,250,000  men  are  in 
training  in  England. 

November  15. — The  deadlock  on  the 
western  front  begins,  destined  to  last, 
with  little  change,  for  years. 

December  6. — The  Germans  occupy 
Lodz,  Poland,  after  six  weeks  of  sangui- 
nary fighting  during  which  both  German 
and  Russian  armies  in  turn  faced  disaster. 

December  8. — The  German  Pacific  fleet 
is  destroyed  by  a  British  squadron  near 
the  Falkland  Islands;  four  German  war- 
ships are  sunk  and  one  escapes. 

December  14. — Austrians  evacuate  Bel- 
grade and  all  Serbia,  after  a  severe  defeat. 

December  16. — German  cruisers  bom- 
bard cities  on  east  coast  of  England. 

December  17. — Great  Britain  declares 
Egypt  to  be  a  British  protectorate,  termi- 
nating suzerainty  of  Turkey. 


327 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War 


December  26 — The  United  States  pro- 
tests to  Great  Britain  against  seizure  and 
detention  of  cargoes  for  neutral  ports. 

1915 

January  3-4. — Russian  armies  defeat 
Turkish  forces  in  the  Caucasus. 

January  16. — Russian  armies  begin  to 
pass  over  Carpathians  from  Galicia  into 
plains  of  Hungary. 

January  24. — A  naval  engagement  is 
fought  in  the  North  Sea  off  Dogger  Bank, 
between  powerful  British  and  German 
fleets,  ending  in  a  British  victory. 

January  26. — The  German  Government 
seizes  all  corn,  wheat,  and  flour — the  be- 
ginning of  a  rationing  system. 

January  30. — German  submarines  sink 
several  British  merchant  ships. 

February  2. — Great  Britain  decides  to 
seize  grain  and  flour  shipments  to  Ger- 
many. 

February  4. — Germany  declares  a  sub- 
marine war  zone  around  the  British  Isles, 
after  February  18,  and  announces  that 
enemy  merchant  ships  will  be  destroyed; 
neutral  vessels  are  warned  of  danger. 

February  10. — The  United  States  pro- 
tests to  Germany  against  risks  created 
by  German  war  zone  decree — the  "strict 
accountability"  note. 

The  United  States  protests  to  Great 
Britain  against  use  of  American  flags  on 
British  vessels. 

February  12. — A  second  Russian  inva- 
sion of  East  Prussia  comes  to  an  end, 
after  a  disastrous  defeat  in  the  Masurian 
Lake  region. 

February  16. — Germany  offers  to  with- 
draw war-zone  decree  if  Great  Britain 
permits  movement  of  foodstuffs  to  civil 
population  of  Germany. 

February  18. — The  German  war  zone 
decree  becomes  effective;  Germany  dis- 
claims responsibility  for  accidents  to  neu- 
tral vessels. 

February  19-20. — British  and  French 
warships  bombard  Turkish  forts  at  en- 
trance to  Dardanelles. 

February  20. — The  United  States  sends 
an  identic  note  to  Great  Britain  and  Ger- 
many, suggesting  agreement  on  (1)  Brit- 
ain's interference  with  food  for  German 
civilians  and  (2)  German  submarine 
methods. 

February  20-23 — Two  American  steam- 
ships are  sunk  by  mines  in  North  Sea. 

March  1. — Premier  Asquith  announces 
Great  Britain's  intention  to  prevent  com- 
modities of  any  kind  from  reaching  or 
leaving  Germany. 

March  10. — The  British  employ  for  first 
time  massed  artillery  fire  preliminary  to 
an  infantry  advance;  they  occupy  Neuve 
Chapelle,  but  fail  to  win  road  to  Lille. 


The  German  converted  cruiser  "Prinz 
Eitel  Friedrich"  enters  Hampton  Roads, 
after  a  seven  months'  commerce-destroy- 
ing voyage  from  China. 

March  14. — The  German  cruiser  "Dres- 
den" (which  escaped  from  Falklands  bat- 
tle) is  sunk  by  British  warships  off  Chile. 

March  19. — One  French  and  two  Brit- 
ish battleships  are  sunk  by  floating  mines 
while  bombarding  forts  in  the  Darda- 
nelles, ending  the  attempt  to  force  a  pas- 
sage without  support  from  land. 

March  21. — A  third  Russian  invasion 
of  East  Prussia  is  brought  to  an  end,  by 
a  defeat  at  Memel. 

March  22. — The  Austrian  fortress  of 
Przemysl  is  surrendered  to  the  Russians, 
after  a  long  siege,  with  130,00  prisoners. 

April  5. — Russia  announces  capture  of 
Carpathian  positions  on  a  75-mile  front. 

April  11. — The  German  converted  cruis- 
er "Kronprinz  Wilhelm"  enters  Hampton 
Roads,  having  remained  at  sea  eight 
months. 

April  21. — Britain's  army  in  active  serv- 
ice is  officially  said  to  be  750,000. 

April  22-May  8.— In  the  Second  Battle 
of  Ypres  the  Germans  gain  ground  north 
of  that  gained  in  the  first  battle,  but  again 
fail  to  break  through  the  British  line; 
they  employ  asphyxiating  gas  for  the 
first  time. 

April  25. — Anglo-French  troops  are 
landed  on  both  sides  of  the  Dardanelles, 
after  suffering  heavy  casualties. 

May  1. — A  Russian  army  is  destroyed 
in  the  Battle  of  the  Dunajec  (east  of  Cra- 
cow), and  other  Russian  armies  in  the 
Carpathians  are  forced  to  retreat  hastily. 

May  7. — The  "Lusitania"  is  sunk  by  a 
German  submarine  without  warning;  1,154 
persons  lose  their  lives,  including  114 
Americans. 

May  12. — A  British  commission  inves- 
tigating charges  of  German  cruelty  in 
Belgium  reports  deeds  unparalleled  in 
three  centuries  of  civilized  warfare. 

May  13.— The  United  States  protests 
to  Germany  against  its  submarine  policy 
culminating  in  sinking  of  "Lusitania,"  and 
declares  that  it  will  not  omit  any  word 
or  act  necessary  to  maintain  the  rights 
of  its  citizens. 

May  23. — Italy  enters  the  war,  against 
Austria-Hungary  only. 

May  25-27.— Two  British  battleships 
are  sunk  by  a  German  submarine  in  the 
Dardanelles. 

June  3. — Russian  forces  evacuate 
Przemysl  and  continue  the  retreat  in  Ga- 
licia. 

June  8. — The  American  Secretary  of 
State,  William  J.  Bryan,  resigns. 

June  9. — The    United    States    sends    a 
second  note  to  Germany  relating  to  the 
"Lusitania." 
328 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War 


Jtffl*  11. — Italian  forces  occupy  Gra- 
disca,  in  an  advance  toward  Trieste. 

June  29. — Austria-Hungary  protests  to 
United  States  against  supplying  war  ma- 
terials to  Allies. 

July  5. — The  Austro-German  move- 
ment against  Russians  ends — having  blocked 
the  threatened  invasion  of  Hungary  and  prac- 
tically cleared  Austria  of  Russians. 

July  8. — Germany  offers  safety  to 
United  States  vessels  in  submarine  zone 
under  specified  conditions. 

July  9. — German  Southwest  Africa  is 
surrendered  to  union  of  South  Africa 
troops  under  General  Botha. 

July  15. — Germany  admits  that  Ameri- 
can steamer  "Nebraskan"  was  damaged 
by  torpedo  from  a  German  submarine. 

July  21.— The  United  States  declares 
Germany's  submarine  proposal  to  be 
"very  unsatisfactory,"  and  states  that  fur- 
ther incidents  will  be  regarded  as  "delib- 
erately unfriendly." 

July  25. — The  American  steamer  "Lee- 
lanaw,"  carrying  contraband,  is  sunk  by  a 
German  submarine,  warning  being  given. 

August  4. — German  troops  occupy  War- 
saw, capital  of  Russian  Poland,  after  a 
swift  encircling  advance  over  vast  terri- 
tory, from  north,  west  and  south. 

August  7. — Additional  British  troops 
are  landed  on  Gallipoli  Peninsula,  at 
Suvla  Bay,  in  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to 
flank  the  Turks. 

August  15. — The  British  Government 
registers  all  persons  in  the  United  King- 
dom between  ages  of  15  and  65. 

August  16-20. — The  Germans  fail  in  at- 
tempt to  enter  the  Gulf  of  Riga,  losing 
several  small  vessels. 

August  17-September  20. — The  Germans 
capture  Kovno,  Brest-Litovsk,  Grodno, 
Vilna,  and  other  fortresses  on  Russia's 
second  line  of  defense. 

August  19. — The  "Arabic"  is  sunk  by  a 
German  submarine  on  way  to  New  York; 
twenty  passengers  (including  several 
Americans)  being  drowned. 

August  21. — Italy  declares  war  on  Tur- 
key. 

The  British  Government  declares  cot- 
ton absolute  contraband. 

September  1. — The  German  Ambassa- 
dor at  Washington  declares  that  here- 
after liners  will  not  be  sunk  by  German 
submarines  without  warning. 

September  7. — The  Russian  Grand  Duke 
Nicholas  is  displaced  from  command  of 
all  Russian  armies. 

September  9.— The  United  States  de- 
mands recall  of  Austro-Hungarian  Am- 
bassador, Dr.  Dumba. 

September  20. — The  Bulgarian  army  is 
mobilized. 

September  23. — The  Greek  army  is  mo- 
bilized. 


September  25. — The  French  undertake 
an  offensive  in  Champagne  region,  which 
gains  ground  but  fails  to  break  through 
the  German  line. 

Anglo-French  troops  north  and  south 
of  Lens  gain  ground  in  an  offensive  de- 
signed principally  to  aid  the  French  at- 
tack in  Champagne;  but  the  British,  at 
Loos,  suffer  heavy  losses. 

October  3. — Russia  demands  that  Bul- 
garia expel  German  and  Austrian  officers. 

October  4. — Allied  forces  are  landed  at 
Salonica,  Greece,  to  help  Serbia  resist  a 
threatened  Austro-German  invasion. 

October  5. — Germany  regrets  the  "Ara- 
bic" sinking,  and  declares  similar  inci- 
dents impossible. 

Premier  Venizelos  of  Greece  resigns, 
his  war  policy  being  supported  by  Depu- 
ties but  vetoed  by  King. 

October  7. — Austro-German  armies  be- 
gin an  invasion  of  Serbia. 

October  11. — Bulgaria,  invading  Serbia, 
enters  the  war  as  an  ally  of  Germany, 
Austria-Hungary,  and  Turkey;  the  Ser- 
bians are  obliged  to  withdraw  to  south 
and  west. 

October  12.— Edith  Cavell,  an  English 
nurse  at  Brussels,  is  shot  by  German  mili- 
tary authorities,  for  assisting  enemies  of 
Germany  to  escape  from  Belgium. 

October  15. — The  Greek  Government 
refuses  to  help  Serbia,  although  bound 
by  a  defensive  treaty. 

October  21.— The  United  States,  in  a 
second  protest  against  detention  of  car- 
goes for  neutral  ports,  declares  Britain's 
blockade  "ineffective,  illegal,  and  indefen- 
sible." 

October  28. — Aristide  Briand  (Social- 
ist) succeeds  Viviani  as  Premier  of  France. 

November  9. — The  Italian  passenger 
steamer  "Ancona"  is  sunk  in  the  Medi- 
terranean by  an  Austrian  submarine. 

November  11. — A  War  Council  is 
formed  in  Great  Britain. 

November  19. — A  British  expeditionary 
force  in  Mesopotamia  is  defeated  at  Ctesi- 
phon,  near  Bagdad. 

November  28. — Germany  declares  the 
campaign  against  Serbia  at  a  close,  prac- 
tically the  entire  country  being  overrun 
by  Austro-German  and  Bulgarian  armies 
and  the  Serbian  army  being  half  dis- 
persed, half  annihilated. 

December  1. — Italy  joins  in  Allied 
agreement  not  to  conclude  a  separate 
peace. 

December  3.— The  United  States  re- 
quests the  recall  of  German  naval  and 
military  attaches  at  Washington. 

December  6. — The  United  States  pro- 
tests to  Austria-Hungary  against  the 
"wanton  slaughter  of/  defenseless  non- 
combatants"  on  the  "Ancona." 

December     9. — Chancellor     von     Beth- 


329 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War 


mann-Hollweg  informs  Reichstag  So- 
cialists that  Germany  cannot  propose 
peace  without  indicating  weakness,  but 
is  ready  to  discuss  Entente  proposals. 

December  15. — General  Sir  Douglas 
Haig  becomes  commander-in-chief  of 
British  armies  in  France  and  Belgium, 
succeeding  Sir  John  French. 

December  30. — Austria  announces  that 
the  submarine  commander  who  torpedoed 
the  "Ancona"  has  been  punished. 

1916 

January  4. — The  United  States  pro- 
tests to  Great  Britain  against  interfer- 
ence with  American  mails  to  and  from 
neutral  countries. 

January  9. — British  and  French  forces 
withdraw  from  Gallipoli  Peninsula,  and 
the  attempt  to  force  the  Dardanelles  is 
abandoned. 

January  11-17. — Montenegro  is  over- 
run by  Austro-Hungarian  armies. 

January  24-27. — A  compulsory  service 
bill  applicable  to  unmarried  men  between 
18  and  41  passes  British  House  of  Com- 
mons and  House  of  Lords,  and  receives 
royal  assent. 

February  1. — The  British  passenger 
steamer  "Appam"  is  brought  into  Hamp- 
ton Roads,  Va.,  by  a  German  prize  crew. 

February  10. — Germany  and  Austria 
announce  that  they  will  treat  armed 
enemy  merchant  ships  as  war  vessels. 

February  16. — The  Turkish  fortress  at 
Erzerum,  Armenia,  is  captured  by  Rus- 
sians. 

February  21. — The  Germans  launch  a 
great  offensive  at  Verdun,  destined  to 
last  until  August,  but  to  fail  in  the  attempt 
to  break  through  French  line. 

February  26. — Austrian  armies  force 
Italians  to  evacuate  Durazzo,  Albania. 

March  8. — Germany  declares  war  on 
Portugal,  for  breaches  of  neutrality. 

March  15. — Admiral  von  Tirpitz,  fore- 
most advocate  of  submarine  ruthlessness, 
resigns  as  German  Minister  of  Marine. 

March  24. — The  British  Channel  steam- 
er "Sussex"  is  torpedoed  without  warn- 
ing by  a  German  submarine. 

April  3. — The  French  make  their  first 
important  counter-attack  at  Verdun. 

April  18.— The  United  States  warns 
Germany  that  unless  present  methods  of 
submarine  warfare  are  abandoned,  diplo- 
matic relations  will  be  severed. 

April  20. — Russian  troops  are  landed  in 
France. 

April  22. — A  German  attempt  to  land 
arms  and  ammunition  in  Ireland  is 
thwarted;  Sir  Roger  Casement,  Irish  na- 
tionalist leader,  is  taken  prisoner. 

April  24. — A  revolution  breaks  out  in 
Dublin,  Ireland,  led  by  members  of  Sinn 


Fein  society;  suppressed  within  a  werk, 
casualties  on  both  sides  totalling  304 
killed  and  1,000  wounded;  sixteen  leaders 
are  convicted  of  treason  and  shot. 

April  28. — A  besieged  British  army  of 
9,000,  under  General  Townshend,  surrend- 
ers to  the  Turks  at  Kut-el-Amara  upon 
exhaustion  of  food;  thus  the  first  British 
attempt  to  reach  Bagdad  fails. 

May  4. — Germany  informs  United 
States  that  submarine  commanders  have 
been  ordered  not  to  sink  merchant  ves- 
sels without  warning  and  without  saving 
lives. 

May  17. — An  Austrian  offensive  causes 
Italians  to  withdraw  in  Trentino. 

May  24. — The  United  States  again  pro- 
tests to  Great  Britain  and  France  against 
interference  with  mails  at  sea,  declaring 
it  can  no  longer  be  tolerated. 

May  25. — The  British  Government's 
new  compulsory  military  service  bill,  ap- 
plicable to  men  between  18  and  41,  re- 
ceives royal  assent. 

May  31. — British  and  German  fleets 
meet  off  Jutland  (Denmark)  in  the  great- 
est naval  engagement  of  history,  the  Ger- 
mans finally  withdrawing;  British  admit 
loss  of  six  large  cruisers  and  eight  de- 
stroyers; Germans  admit  loss  of  a  battle- 
ship, a  battle  cruiser,  four  light  cruisers, 
and  five  destroyers;  9,500  lives  are  lost. 

June  4. — A  Russian  offensive  is  begun 
on  front  of  250  miles  in  Volhynia,  Gali- 
cia,  and  Bukowina;  the  Russians  later 
claiming  200,000  prisoners  in  three  weeks. 

June  5. — Earl  Kitchener,  British  Minis- 
ter of  War,  on  his  way  to  Russia  is 
drowned  by  the  sinking  of  cruiser  "Hamp- 
shire" by  mine  or  torpedo. 

June  6. — Continued  German  assaults  at 
Verdun  (beginning  in  February)  result  in 
capture  of  Fort  Vaux. 

June  14. — An  Economic  Conference  of 
the  Allies  is  held  at  Paris. 

June  16. — The  Austrian  offensive  against 
Italy  ends,  and  an  Italian  counter-offen- 
sive is  begun. 

June  28. — Karl  Liebknecht,  German  So- 
cialist, is  sentenced  to  thirty  months'  im- 
prisonment for  peace  activities. 

July  1. — A  great  Allied  offensive  is 
launched  by  British  and  French,  at  River 
Somme — to  last  until  November,  to  gain 
ground,  but  to  fail  in  its  larger  purpose. 

July  9. — The  German  commercial  sub- 
marine "Deutschland,"  arrives  at  Balti- 
more, having  crossed  the  Atlantic  with 
cargo  of  chemicals — returning  on  August 
23  with  gold,  nickel  and  rubber. 

July  23. — Great  Britain  replies  to  United 
States  mail  protest,  upholding  efficiency 
of  methods. 

July  26. — The  United  States  protests  to 
Great  Britain  against  blacklisting  of  cer- 
tain firms  and  individuals. 
330 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War 


August  3.  —  Sir  Roger  Casement  is 
hanged  at  London  for  treason  in  promot- 
ing the  Irish  rebellion. 

August  7-9. — Italian  troops  capture  Go- 
rizia,  in  a  brilliant  attack. 

August  27. — Italy  declares  war  on  Ger- 
many. 

Rumania  enters  the  war  and  begins  an 
invasion  of  Transylvania,  Hungary. 

August  29. — Field  Marshal  von  Hinden- 
burg  succeeds  General  von  Falkenhayn  as 
German  Chief  of  Staff. 

September  4. — Bulgarian  and  German 
troops  invade  Dobrudja,  Rumania,  over- 
running the  whole  district  by  January. 

September  14. — The  British  use  for  first 
time  (in  the  Somme  battle)  the  "tank"  or 
armored  and  armed  motor  truck,  capable 
of  crossing  trenches  and  demolishing 
obstacles. 

October  8. — The  German  war  submarine 
"U-53"  sinks  six  European  merchant 
steamships  off  Nantucket. 

October  11-16. — Greece's  fleet  is  taken 
over  by  Allied  fleet;  the  government  of 
Venizelos  is  recognized. 

October  24. — The  French  at  Verdun  re- 
gain important  positions  lost  to  Germans 
from  February  to  June. 

November  1. — The  German  merchant 
submarine  "Deutschland"  arrives  at  New 
London,  Conn.,  on  a  second  voyage,  re- 
turning safely  on  December  10. 

November  5.  —  A  new  Kingdom  of 
Poland  is  proclaimed  by  Germany  and 
Austria,  confined  to  territory  conquered 
from  Russia. 

November  7. — Cardinal  Mercier,  of  Bel- 
gium, issues  protests  to  civilized  world 
against  deportation  of  Belgian  citizens 
for  forced  labor  in  Germany. 

November  19. — After  decisively  defeat- 
ing Rumanians  in  Transylvania,  German 
armies  begin  an  invasion  of  Rumania; 
Bucharest,  the  capital,  is  reached  on  De- 
cember 6. 

November  21.  —  Francis-Joseph,  Em- 
peror of  Austria  and  King  of  Hungary, 
dies  at  Vienna;  he  is  succeeded  by  his 
grand-nephew  Charles  I. 

Dr.  Aldred  Zimmermann  succeeds  Von 
Tagow  as  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in 
Germany. 

December  6. — David  Lloyd  George  be- 
comes Premier  of  Great  Britain,  succeed- 
ing Asquith. 

December  12. — Germany  offers  to  enter 
into  peace  negotiations;  the  offer  is  later 
declared  by  the  ten  Allies  to  be  "empty 
and  insincere." 

General  Nivelle  succeeds  Joffre  as  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  the  French  armies. 

December  18. — President  Wilson  sends 
a  note  to  the  belligerent  nations,  suggest- 
ing an  avowal  of  respective  views  regard- 
ing peace  terms. 


December  21. — Secretary  Lansing  de- 
clares that  the  United  States  is  "drawing 
nearer  to  the  verge  of  war,"  later  denying 
change  of  neutral  policy  is  contemplated. 

December  26. —  Germany  replies  to 
President  Wilson's  note,  proposing  a 
meeting  of  peace  delegates,  but  failing 
to  state  war  aims  or  peace  terms. 

1917 

January  10. — The  Entente  Governments 
reply  to  President  Wilson's  note,  stating 
general  peace  terms,  which  include  res- 
toration, reparation,  and  indemnity. 

January  22.-— President  Wilson  addresses 
United  States  Senate  on  peace:  "It  must 
be  a  peace  without  victory";  there  should 
be  an  independent  and  autonomous  Pol- 
and; outlets  to  sea  should  be  neutralized 
and  the  seas  should  be  free;  military  and 
naval  armaments  must  be  limited. 

January  31. — Germany  resumes  unre- 
stricted submarine  war,  declaring  that 
"from  February  1,  1917,  sea  traffic  will  be 
stopped  with  every  available  weapon  and 
without  further  notice"  [without  warn- 
ing]; American  passenger  ships  may  sail 
once  a  week  under  prescribed  conditions. 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  the 
Colonies  declares  that  captured  colonies 
will  never  return  to  German  rule. 

February  3.— The  United  States  severs 
diplomatic  relations  with  Germany. 

February  4. — President  Wilson  invites 
neutral  nations  to  take  action  against  Ger- 
many similar  to  that  taken  by  United 
States. 

February  13. — Denmark,  Norway,  and 
Sweden  present  an  identic  note  to  Ger- 
many refusing  to  recognize  the  submarine 
blockade  as  legal. 

February  22. — A  fleet  of  seven  Nether- 
lands steamers  is  destroyed  by  a  German 
submarine,  after  having  been  assured  of 
"relative  safety." 

February  23. — Great  Britain  inaugurates 
drastic  measures  to  meet  the  food  crisis 
by  increasing  home  production  and  cur- 
tailing imports. 

February  25. — Kut-el-Amara,  in  Meso- 
potamia, is  captured  by  British  (after  a 
campaign  begun  on  December  13),  re- 
trieving the  surrender  of  April,  1916. 

February  26. — President  Wilson  asks 
Congress  for  authority  to  arm  merchant 
ships. 

February  27. — Chancellor  von  Beth- 
mann-Hollweg  declares  in  German  Reich- 
stag that  the  United  States  has  submitted 
to  isolation  from  Germany  while  guarding 
the  right  of  its  citizens  to  trade  with  and 
travel  in  France  and  England. 

February  28. — A  proposal  from  Zimmer- 
mann, German  Foreign  Secretary,  be- 
comes known,  looking  to  alliance  with 


331 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War 


jp/7  (Continued) 

Mexico  in  event  of  war  with  United  States, 
and  also  suggesting  Japanese  participa- 
tion; Mexico  to  receive  financial  support 
and  to  be  compensated  with  New  Mexico, 
Texas,  and  Arizona. 

March  2-3. — Japan  and  Mexico  deny  that 
any  proposal  was  received  from  Germany 
to  join  in  a  war  against  United  States; 
Herr  Zimmermann  defends  his  plan,  as 
operative  only  in  event  of  war. 

March  11. — A  revolution  breaks  out  in 
Petrograd,  Russia,  the  disturbances  begin- 
ning over  shortage  of  food,  with  sympa- 
thetic strikes  in  munition  factories  and 
finally  with  mutiny  of  troops;  the  Duma 
assumes  direction  of  the  movement. 

Bagdad,  most  important  city  of  Meso- 
potamia and  terminus  of  Germany's  rail- 
way project,  is  captured  by  British  troops. 

March  12.  —  The  United  States  an- 
nounces that  it  has  decided  to  arm  mer- 
chant vessels. 

March  15. — Czar  Nicholas  abdicates  the 
throne  of  Russia;  Prince  Lvoff  becomes 
Premier. 

March  17-19. — The  Germans  withdraw 
before  the  British,  evacuating  1,300  square 
miles  of  French  territory,  from  Arras  to 
Soissons,  including  Bapaume. 

Alexandre  Ribot  succeeds  Briand  as 
Premier  of  France. 

March  26. — The  United  States  refuses  to 
interpret  and  supplement  the  Prussian 
treaty  of  1799,  with  reference  to  status  of 
enemy  residents. 

March  27. — A  British  expedition  in  the 
Holy  Land  defeats  the  Turks  near  Gaza. 

March  31-April  2.— The  British  and 
French  capture  a  score  of  French  villages 
near  St.  Quentin,  where  the  German  with- 
drawal had  stopped. 

April  2. — President  Wilson  asks  Con- 
gress to  declare  that  recent  acts  of  Ger- 
man Imperial  Government  are  in  fact  war; 
the  Senate  adopts  the  war  resolution,  82  to 
6,  on  April  4;  the  House,  373  to  50,  on 
April  6. 

April  5. — Russian  troops  advancing  from 
Persia  effect  a  junction  with  the  British 
army  in  Asia  Minor. 

April  6. — The  United  States  enters  the 
war  against  Germany;  ninety  German  ves- 
sels (600,000  tons)  are  seized. 

April  7. — Cuba  and  Panama  follow  the 
United  States  and  declare  war  against 
Germany. 

The  German  Emperor  directs  the  Chan- 
cellor to  assist  in  obtaining  franchise  re- 
forms for  the  people. 

April  8. — Austria  informs  the  United 
States  that  it  has  decided  to  sever  diplo- 
matic relations. 

April  9-May  3. — The  British  launch  an 
offensive  against  the  German  lines  near 


Arras,  carrying  Vimy  Ridge,  gaining  three 
to  five  miles,  and  piercing  the  famous 
Hindenburg  line. 

April  11. — Brazil  severs  diplomatic  rela- 
tions with  Germany. 

April  13. — Bolivia  severs  diplomatic  re- 
lations with  Germany. 

April  16-May  6. — The  French  launch  an 
offensive  against  the  German  line  along 
the  Aisne,  advancing  on  a  front  of  25  miles 
between  Soissons  and  Rheims,  capturing 
Craonne  Ridge. 

April  20. — Turkey  severs  relations  with 
the  United  States. 

April  21. — A  British  mission  arrives  in 
United  States  headed  by  Foreign  Secre- 
tary Balfour. 

April  24. — A  French  mission  arrives  in 
United  States,  headed  by  ex-Premier  Vivi- 
ani  and  Marshal  Joffre. 

April  28. — Guatemala  breaks  off  rela- 
tions with  Germany. 

May  4. — The  American  navy  begins  ac- 
tive participation  in  the  war,  a  destroyer 
flotilla  cooperating  with  the  British  fleet 
in  the  war  zone. 

May  9. — The  Russian  Provisional  Gov- 
ernment declares  that  "the  frightful  spec- 
tre of  civil  war  and  anarchy  hovers  over 
Russia,  threatening  its  freedom." 

May  11. — The  Russian  Council  of  Work- 
men's and  Soldiers'  Delegates  vote  to 
call  a  peace  conference  in  a  neutral 
country. 

May  15. — General  Petain  succeeds  Gen- 
eral Nivelle  as  Commander-in-Chief  of 
French  armies. 

May  15-24. — The  Italians  make  progress 
in  an  offensive  against  the  Austrians, 
from  Tolmino  to  the  Adriatic. 

May  17. — A.  F.  Kerensky,  a  Russian 
Socialist  leader,  becomes  Minister  of  War. 

May  18. — President  Wilson  signs  a  bill 
creating  an  army  of  500,000  men  under 
a  selective  conscription  system — in  addi- 
tion to  Regulars  and  National  Guard. 

May  19. — The  reorganized  provisional 
government  in  Russia  rejects  "all  thought 
of  a  separate  peace,"  but  welcomes  a  gen- 
eral peace  without  annexation  or  indem- 
nity. 

June  4-7. — The  Austrians  in  a  counter- 
attack on  Carso  Plateau  recover  a  third 
of  territory  recently  lost  to  Italians. 

June  5. — The  French  Chamber  of  Dep- 
uties, 453  to  55,  declares  that  peace  terms 
must  include  the  restoration  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine. 

June  7. — With  a  great  mine  explosion, 
the  British  blast  away  the  top  of  Wyt- 
schaet-Messines  Ridge,  dominating  Ypres 
from  the  south,  and  wipe  out  a  German 
salient. 

June  9. — President  Wilson  warns  the 
Russian  provisional  government  against 
German  propaganda. 


332 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War 


June  12-29. — Greece  becomes  a  bellig- 
erent: King  Constantine  abdicates  the 
throne  on  June  12,  in  favor  of  his  son 
Alexander,  in  response  to  the  demands 
of  England,  France  and  Russia;  Venizelos 
becomes  Premier  on  June  25,  and  diplo- 
matic relations  with  Germany  are  severed 
on  June  29. 

June  13. — Major-General  Pershing  and 
his  staff  arrive  in  Paris,  to  prepare  for 
the  first  American  expedition. 

June  15. — An  American  mission  to  Rus- 
sia, headed  by  Elihu  Root,  is  welcomed 
at  Petrograd  by  the  provisional  govern- 
ment. 

The  first  American  war  loan  is  closed, 
with  the  $2,000,000,000  offered  oversub- 
scribed by  50  per  cent. 

June  17. — The  Russian  Duma  votes  in 
favor  of  "an  immediate  offensive  in  close 
cooperation  with  Russia's  allies." 

June  18 — Haiti  severs  diplomatic  rela- 
tions with  Germany. 

June  26. — The  first  American  troops  ar- 
rive in  France,  having  sailed  secretly  on 
June  14. 

June  28. — Brazil  revokes  its  decree  of 
neutrality — equivalent  to  a  declaration  of 
war  on  Germany. 

July  1-17. — The  Russian  army,  led  by 
Minister  of  War  Kerensky,  assumes  an 
offensive  (in  Galicia)  for  first  time  since 
the  revolution;  Halicz  is  captured,  and 
36,000  German,  Austrian,  and  Turkish 
prisoners. 

July  11. — Premier  Ribot  declares  that 
France's  right  to  Alsace-Lorraine  will 
not  admit  of  a  plebiscite. 

July  14. — A  German  political  crisis  over 
peace  demands  brings  the  resignation  of 
Chancellor  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  and 
Foreign  Secretary  Zimmermann;  Dr. 
Georg  Michaelis  becomes  Chancellor. 

July  19. — The  German  Reichstag  adopts 
a  peace  resolution  (proposed  by  Social- 
ists, Radicals  and  Catholics)  expressing 
desire  of  German  people  for  peace  without 
forcible  acquisitions  of  territory,  and 
with  mutual  understanding  and  lasting 
consideration. 

Finland  proclaims  its  independence,  the 
beginning  of  a  widespread  movement 
throughout  Russia  to  establish  separate 
governments. 

July  19-26. — The  recently  tvictorious 
Russian  army  mutinies  and  retreats  in 
the  face  of  a  German  counter-attack;  Ke- 
rensky becomes  Premier,  with  unlimited 
powers. 

July  22. — Siam  declares  war  on  Ger- 
many and  Austria. 

July  25. — A  convention  assembles  at 
Dublin  to  settle  the  Irish  question. 

July  27. — The  Allies  decide  to  withdraw 
from  Greece,  except  from  Salonica. 

Premier    Lloyd    George    declares    that 


Great  Britain  has  enrolled  more  than  5,- 
000,000  soldiers,  besides  500,000  in  the 
navy  and  1,000,000  from  dominions  and 
colonies. 

July  30.— The  French  High  Commis- 
sioner to  the  United  States  declares  that 
France's  present  fighting  strength  is 
3,000,000  men,  who  hold  two-thirds  of  the 
western  front. 

July  31. — A  Franco-British  offensive  in 
Flanders,  Belgium,  results  in  an  advance 
of  two  and  a  half  miles,  heavy  rains  inter- 
fering. 

August  6. — Richard  von  Kuehlmann  be- 
comes Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in 
Germany. 

August  7. — Liberia  declares  war  on 
Germany. 

August  14. — China  declares  war  on 
Germany  and  Austria. 

August  15. — A  peace  appeal  by  Pope 
Benedict  (dated  August  1)  is  made  pub- 
lic; he  suggests  disarmament,  evacuation 
of  Belgian  and  French  territory,  restitu- 
tion of  German  colonies,  and  settlement 
of  political  and  territorial  questions  in  a 
conciliatory  spirit  for  the  general  welfare. 

Canadian  troops  capture  Hill  70,  domi- 
nating Lens  (declared  impregnable  by 
Germans). 

August  20-24. — Dr.  Alexander  Wekerle 
becomes  Premier  of  Hungary. 

A  French  attack  at  Verdun  results  in 
the  capture  of  important  positions  and 
4,000  prisoners. 

August  24-September  14. — Italian  forces 
capture  Monte  Santo  and  Monte  San  Ga- 
briele,  Austrian  strongholds  near  Gorizia. 

August  27. — President  Wilson  replies 
to  the  Pope's  peace  message;  he  con- 
demns proposals  for  punitive  damages, 
the  dismemberment  of  empires,  and  the 
establishment  of  economic  leagues,  but 
declares  that  a  peace  agreement  made  by 
present  German  rulers  must  be  supported 
by  German  people. 

American  exports  to  neutral  countries 
are  placed  under  Government  control. 

September  3. — Riga,  Russia's  second 
most  important  seaport,  is  occupied  by 
Germans,  the  demoralized  Russian  army 
withdrawing. 

September  6. — Premier  Ribot  declares 
that  France  will  not  consent  to  diplo- 
matic discussion  of  Alsace-Lorraine. 

September  7-10. — Premier  Ribot  re- 
signs and  Paul  Painleve  becomes  Premier 
of  France. 

September  8. — Intercepted  telegrams 
from  Luxburg,  German  Charge  in  Argen- 
tine, to  Berlin,  recommend  that  Argen- 
tine vessels,  if  sunk  by  German  subma- 
rines, should  be  destroyed  "without  leav- 
ing a  trace." 

September  15. — A  Russian  Republic  is 
proclaimed. 


333 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War 


September  18. — Premier  Painleve  states 
France's  war  aims  as  the  disannexation 
of  Alsace-Lorraine,  reparation  for  ruin, 
and  a  just  peace  with  guarantees  against 
aggression. 

September  19-25. — The  Argentine  Con- 
gress votes  to  break  diplomatic  relations 
with  Germany;  President  Irigoyen  does 
not  carry  out  the  recommendation. 

September  20-October  12. — A  series  of 
British  attacks  in  the  Ypres  sector  are  all 
retarded  by  muddy  ground. 

September  21. — German  and  Austrian 
replies  to  the  Pope  ignore  the  status  of 
occupied  territory,  but  declare  for  imme- 
diate negotiations  among  the  belligerents; 
a  supplemental  reply  on  September  26  of- 
fers to  contribute  toward  compensation 
to  Belgium,  but  demands  economic  rights 
and  a  guarantee  against  any  "Belgian 
menace  such  as  threatened  Germany  in 
1914." 

October  6. — Peru  severs  diplomatic  re- 
lations with  Germany. 

October  7. — Uruguay  severs  diplomatic 
relations  with  Germany. 

October  12. — The  German  Minister  of 
Marine,  Admiral  von  Capelle,  resigns  fol- 
lowing a  mutiny  in  the  Baltic  Fleet. 

October  17. — The  American  transport 
"Antilles,"  homeward  bound,  is  torpedoed 
and  sunk  with  the  loss  of  70  lives. 

A  naval  engagement  in  the  Gulf  of 
Riga  results  in  the  sinking  of  a  Russian 
battleship. 

October  20. — Five  Zeppelin  airships  are 
destroyed  in  France  after  a  raid  over 
England. 

October  23-25. — A  French  offensive 
near  Soissons  results  in  a  maximum  gain 
of  nearly  four  miles  with  12,000  prisoners. 

October  24-November  10. — An  Austro- 
German  army,  with  overwhelming  artil- 
lery, breaks  through  the  Italian  line  and 
causes  withdrawal  not  only  from  Aus- 
trian territory,  but  from  northern  Italy 
to  the  Piave  River  line. 

October  26. — Brazil  declares  war  on 
Germany,  following  the  sinking  of  a 
fourth  merchant  vessel. 

October  27. — Subscriptions  for  the  sec- 
ond American  war  loan  are  closed;  ac- 
ceptances totalling  $3,808,766,150. 

October  30. — Count  George  F.  von 
Hertling  succeeds  Michaelis  as  Chan- 
cellor of  Germany. 

Vittorio  Orlando  becomes  Premier  of 
Italy,  succeeding  Boselli. 

November  3. — Germany  announces  the 
first  capture  of  American  soldiers,  north 
of  Luneville. 

November  5. — American  patrol  boat 
"Alcedo"  is  sunk  by  a  German  submarine 
with  a  loss  of  21  lives. 

November  8-14. — A  second  revolution 
in  Russia,  under  direction  of  Bolsheviki 


(or  Maximalist  faction  of  Radical  Social- 
ists), results  in  overthrow  of  Kerensky 
government;  the  new  Premier  Lenine  and 
Foreign  Minister  Trotzky  declare  for  an 
immediate  democratic  peace,  the  handing- 
over  of  land  to  peasants,  and  the  convoca- 
tion of  a  constitutional  assembly. 

November  9. — A  Supreme  War  Council 
is  created,  composed  of  the  Prime  Min- 
ister and  a  military  representative  from 
each  Government. 

November  12. — Premier  Lloyd  George 
speaks  in  Paris  on  lack  of  cooperation 
among  the  Allies;  he  recalls  the  Serbian 
"tragedy,"  its  repetition  in  Rumania,  and 
the  Italian  disaster. 

November  13-15. — Painleve  resigns  and 
Georges  Clemenceau  becomes  Premier  of 
France. 

November  17. — The  British  in  Palestine 
occupy  Jaffa. 

November  20. — The  British  at  Cambrai 
move  forward  without  the  usual  artillery 
preparation,  gaining  five  miles  on  a  wide 
front  and  capturing  8,000  Germans; 
"tanks"  play  an  important  part. 

November  28. — The  revolutionary  gov- 
ernment in  Russia  makes  public  a  secret 
agreement  entered  into  with  Italy  on 
April  26,  1915,  by  Great  Britain,  France 
and  Russia;  Italy's  claims  to  Austrian 
territory  were  recognized  in  return  for 
joining  the  Allies. 

November  29. — An  Inter-Allied  Con- 
ference is  opened  at  Paris,  the  Premiers 
of  France  and  England  attending  and 
Col.  Edw.  M.  House  representing  U.  S. 

November  30-December  5. — German 
counter-attacks  regain  half  the  ground 
recently  lost  to  British  near  Cambrai. 

December  1. — German  East  Africa,  last 
and  largest  of  Germany's  overseas  pos- 
sessions, comes  under  complete  control 
of  Allied  forces. 

December  4-7.— The  United  States  Con- 
gress, following  recommendations  by 
President  Wilson,  declares  war  on  Aus- 
tria-Hungary. 

December  6. — A  large  section  of  Hali- 
fax, Nova  Scotia,  is  destroyed  by  an  ex- 
plosion; 150  persons  are  killed  and  20,000 
rendered  homeless. 

United  States  destroyer  "Jacob  Jones" 
is  sunk  by  a  German  submarine,  with  a 
loss  of  66  lives. 

December  7. — An  armistice  goes  into 
effect  on  the  Russo-German  front. 

December  8. — Ecuador  severs  diplo- 
matic relations  with  Germany. 

December  10. — Jerusalem  is  occupied 
by  British  forces. 

December  20. — Premier  Lloyd  George 
states  Britain's  peace  terms:  restoration 
of  German-occupied  territory,  with  repa- 
ration; the  future  of  German  colonies  to 
be  based  upon  wishes  of  native  races. 


334 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  IV ar 


December  22. — A  peace  conference  as- 
sembles at  Brest-Litovsk,  German-occu- 
pied Russia,  with  delegates  from  Russia, 
Germany,  Austria-Hungary,  Bulgaria,  and 
Turkey;  the  Central  Powers  propose  a 
general  peace  without  forcible  annexa- 
tions and  indemnities,  the  Allies  to  join 
with  Russia;  Russia  must  recognize  the 
demand  of  the  peoples  of  Poland,  Lithu- 
ania, Courland,  Esthonia  and  Livonia  for 
self-government,  and  German  troops  will 
not  be  withdrawn  from  those  territories. 

1918 

January  5. — Premier  Lloyd  George  re- 
states war  aims  of  Great  Britain,  declar- 
ing that  destruction  of  Germany  or  Aus- 
tria-Hungary and  the  separation  of  Tur- 
key's capital  are  not  war  aims;  the  Al- 
sace-Lorraine wrong  of  1871  must  be  re- 
considered, the  Dardanelles  must  be  neu- 
tralized, and  Arabia,  Armenia,  Mesopo- 
tamia, Syria,  and  Palestine  must  not  be 
restored  to  Turkish  sovereignty. 

January  7. — Earl  Reading,  Lord  Chief 
Justice  of  England,  is  appointed  High 
Commissioner  and  Special  Ambassador 
to  the  United  States. 

January  8. — President  Wilson  addresses 
Congress  on  America's  program  of  world 
peace,  specifying  fourteen  "rectifications 
of  wrong  and  assertions  of  right." 

January  16. — The  United  States  Fuel 
Administrator  orders  the  closing  of  man- 
ufacturing industries  for  five  days,  and  of 
all  non-essential  businesses  for  nine  Mon- 
days, to  save  fuel  and  relieve  railroads. 

January  20. — In  a  naval  engagement  at 
the  Dardanelles,  with  British  vessels,  a 
Turkish  battleship  is  sunk  and  another 
disabled. 

January  21. — Strikes  in  Austrian  cities, 
in  favor  of  peace,  but  aggravated  by  food 
shortage,  cause  the  closing  of  important 
war  industries. 

January  24. — Chancellor  von  Hertling 
replies  to  peace  terms  of  Premier  Lloyd 
George  and  President  Wilson — declining 
to  allow  interference  in  Russian  affairs, 
leaving  Italian  matters  to  Austria-Hun- 
gary to  answer,  pledging  support  to  Tur- 
key against  proposals  affecting  its  terri- 
tory, declaring  that  withdrawal  from 
France  should  be  agreed  upon  between 
Germany  and  France,  that  Belgian  de- 
tails be  settled  at  a  peace  conference,  and 
that  dismemberment  of  Alsace-Lorraine 
can  never  be  considered. 

The  Austro-Hungarian  Prime  Minister 
states  that  Austria  demands  no  territory 
from  Russia,  and  makes  overtures  for  a 
direct  "exchange  of  ideas"  with  the 
United  States. 

January  28-February  4. — Strikes  occur 
in  Berlin  and  other  German  cities  in  favor 


of  peace  without  indemnities  or  annexa- 
tions, the  abolition  of  militarism  in  war 
industries,  and  participation  of  workmen 
in  peace  parleys. 

February  5. — The  British  transport 
"Tuscania,"  carrying  2,200  American  sol- 
diers under  British  convoy,  is  sunk  off 
Ireland,  170  soldiers  being  lost. 

February  6. — The  French  High  Com- 
missioner to  United  States  declares  there 
are  4,725,000  French  soldiers  under  arms, 
nearly  three  million  being  in  war  zone, 
holding  three-fourths  of  the  western  front 
of  470  miles. 

February  9. — The  first  peace  treaty  is 
signed  between  representatives  of  Cen- 
tral Powers  and  the  new  Republic  of 
Ukraine,  in  Southern  Russia. 

Germany  claims  the  capture  of  Ameri- 
can prisoners  at  Xivray,  east  of  St.  Mihiel. 

February  11. — President  Wilson,  ad- 
dressing Congress,  analyzes  recent  Aus- 
tro-German  peace  utterances  and  restates 
four  principles  upon  which  a  just  and  per- 
manent peace  could  be  founded. 

The  Russian  Government,  though  re- 
fusing to  sign  a  peace  treaty,  declares 
war  with  Central  Powers  at  an  end. 

February  18-19. — Germany  resumes  hos- 
tilities against  Russia;  the  Russian  Gov- 
ernment declares  its  willingness  to  sign 
the  peace  treaty  dictated  by  the  Teutons. 

February  22. — Norway  guarantees  that 
American  imports  will  neither  reach 
Germany  nor  replace  Norwegian  prod- 
ucts exported  to  Germany. 

February  25. — Chancellor  von  Hertling 
expresses  fundamental  agreement  with 
President  Wilson's  four  principles,  and 
declares  that  peace  can  be  discussed  on 
such  a  basis;  England's  war  aims  are  still 
"thoroughly  imperialistic." 

February  27. — Japanese  military  opera- 
tions in  Siberia  are  proposed,  to  save  vast 
quantities  of  military  supplies. 

March  3. — A  peace  treaty  is  signed  at 
Brest-Litovsk,  between  Russia  and  the 
four  Central  Powers;  besides  territory  al- 
ready occupied  by  Germans,  new  terms 
compel  Russia  to  "evacuate"  Ukrainia, 
Esthonia  and  Livonia,  Finland,  the  Aland 
Islands,  and  the  Transcaucasian  districts 
of  Erivan,  Kars,  and  Batum. 

March  5. — A  preliminary  peace  treaty 
is  signed  between  Rumania  and  the  Cen- 
tral Powers,  Rumania  giving  up  province 
of  Dobrudja  to  the  Danube  and  accepting 
"frontier  rectifications"  demanded  by 
Austria-Hungary. 

March  7. — A  treaty  of  peace  is  signed 
between  Germany  and  Finland. 

March  9. — The  Government  of  Russia 
is  transferred  from  Petrograd  to  Moscow. 

March  10. — The  American  Secretary  of 
War,  Mr.  Baker,  arrives  in  France  on  a 
tour  of  inspection. 


335 


Record  of  Events  in  the  Great  War 


It  is  announced  that  American  troops 
are  in  trenches  at  four  points — on  the 
Lorraine  front,  northwest  of  Toul;  in  the 
Champagne;  in  Alsace  near  Luneville; 
and  in  the  Chemin-des-Dames  region 
northwest  of  Rheims. 

March  11. — President  Wilson  expresses 
sympathy  with  Russian  people  in  a  mes- 
sage to  the  Congress  of  Soviets,  meeting 
at  Moscow  to  ratify  German  peace  treaty. 

March  20. — The  United  States  seizes 
Dutch  vessels  in  American  ports  after 
giving  notice  that  the  shipping  agreement 
reached  with  Allies,  postponed  through 
fear  of  Germany,  should  be  put  into  ef- 
fect. 

March  21. — The  British  Admiralty  pub- 
lishes its  record  of  merchant  ships  sunk 
to  end  of  1917;  British  ships,  7,079,492 
tons;  total  ships,  11,827,572  tons. 

March  21-29.— The  greatest  battle  of  the 
war  is  begun  by  the  Germans,  against  fifty 
miles  of  British  and  French  line  in  Picar- 
dy — from  Arras  to  La  Fere;  1,000  square 
miles  of  territory  are  lost  by  Allies. 

March  23. — Paris  is  bombarded  by  long- 
range  guns  from  a  distance  of  seventy 
miles. 

March  29. — General  Ferdinand  Foch, 
the  French  strategist,  becomes  com- 
mander-in-chief  of  the  Allied  forces  in 
France — British,  French,  American,  Ital- 
ian, Belgian,  and  Portuguese. 

April  2. — The  Austro-Hungarian  For- 
eign Minister,  Count  Czernin,  declares 
that  the  four  points  laid  down  by  Presi- 
dent Wilson  on  February  11  are  a  basis 
on  which  to  discuss  general  peace;  he 
doubts,  whether  the  President  will  suc- 
ceed in  uniting  his  Allies  on  such  a  basis. 

April  6. — President  Wilson  condemns 
Germany's  peace  treaties  forced  upon 
Russia  and  Rumania,  and  proclaims  that 
America  will  meet  with  "force  to  the  ut- 
most" German's  challenge. 


April  9-16. — The  German  attack  is 
shifted  to  the  north,  from  La  Bassee 
Canal  to  Armentieres,  British  and  Portu- 
guese defenders  being  forced  to  retire  six 
miles;  in  the  Ypres  salient,  the  Germans 
force  the  British  to  evacuate  portions  of 
Messines  Ridge  and  Passchendaele  Ridge 
— positions  gained  at  great  sacrifice  ear- 
lier in  the  war. 

April  10. — The  Russian  Commissioner 
of  Commerce  states  that  the  treaty  with 
Germany  has  taken  away  300,000  square 
miles  of  territory,  with  56,000,000  inhabi- 
tants (32  per  cent,  of  Russia's  entire  popu- 
lation), besides  one-third  of  her  railways, 
73  per  cent,  of  iron,  and  89  per  cent,  of 
coal. 

April  11. — The  French  Government 
makes  public  a  letter  from  Emperor 
Charles,  of  Austria  (dated  March  31, 
1917)  communicated  to  President  Poin- 
care,  pledging  support  to  "France's  just 
claims  regarding  Alsace-Lorraine"  and  to 
reestablishment  of  Belgium  and  Serbia. 

April  12. — The  Irish  Convention,  after 
eight  months  of  deliberation,  presents  a 
divided  report  to  the  British  Govern* 
ment,  proposing  an  Irish  Parliament  of 
two  nouses;  it  was  not  found  possible  to 
overcome  objections  of  Ulster  Unionists. 

April  13. — German  troops  occupy  Hel- 
singfors,  Finland. 

April  14. — The  Navy  Department  an- 
nounces that  the  U.  S.  S.  "Cyclops"  has 
been  missing  since  March  4,  with  293 
persons  on  board. 

April  17. — French  reinforcements  reach 
the  British  in  the  north,  while  Italians 
form  the  right  wing  of  the  united  army  in 
France. 

April  18. — Premier  Lloyd  George's  Man 
Power  bill  becomes  a  law  in  Great  Britain, 
raising  the  age  limit  for  compulsory  serv- 
ice to  fifty  years,  and  extending  con- 
scription to  Ireland. 


COUNTRIES  AT  WAR 


(And  date  when  each  became 

1914 

Austria  July  28 

Serbia  July  28 

Germany  August     1 

Russia  August    1 

France  August    3 

Belgium  August    4 

Great  Britain  August    4 

Montenegro  August    7 

Japan  August  23 

Turkey  October  29 

1915 

Italy  May  23 

San  Marino 
Bulgaria  October  11 

336 


a  belligerent) 

1916 

Portugal  March  8 

Rumania  August  27 


United 

Cuba 

Panama 

Greece 

Siam 

Liberia 

China 

Brazil 


1917 

States 


April    6 
April    7 
April    7 
June  29 
July  22 
August    7 
August  14 
October  26 


PRONUNCIATION  OF  WAR  NAMES 


THE  PRONUNCIATION  OF  WAR  NAMES 

By  C.  O.  SYLVESTER  MAWSON,  Litt.D.,  Ph.D. 

(Copyright  1918  by  C.  S.  Hammond  &  Co..  New  York  City) 

KEY  TO  PRONUNCIATION 

VOWEL  SOUNDS:  ale,  bSre,  arm,  ask,  senile,  5m,  org<in,  spfd;  eve,  8vent,  ?nd,  nov?l,  bak?r;  Ice,  111;  old,  firb,  ftbey, 
odd,  combine  ;  use,  Orn,  finite,  up,  locust ;  f<56d,  fflot ;  ou  as  in  out ;  oi  as  in  oil ;  ii  as  in  menu. 

NOTE. — u,  as  in  French  menu  or  German  Muller,  has  no  equivalent  in  English.  To  produce  it,  hold  the  lips  rigidly  in 
position  to  say  oo  and  attempt  to  say  e.  S  or  oe  in  German  resembles  the  English  u  in  urn ;  e.  g.,  Guthe  or  Goethe  is  pro- 
nounced gQ'te. 

CONSONANTS:  As  in  English,  ch  as  in  chair ;  g  as  in  go ;  kw  for  qu  as  in  yueen ;  »asin»o;  sh  as  in  she;  z  as  in  zone, • 
th  as  z  in  azure. 

SPECIAL  SYMBOLS:  K  (small  capital)  for  ch  as  in  German  ieh  or  Scotch  loch  ;  N  (small  capital)  indicates  nasal  tone  of 
preceding  vowel,  as  in  French  ban  (bdN) ;  rj  ( =  ng)  for  n  before  the  sound  of  k  or  hard  g  as  in  bank  (baqk ),  finger  (flo'ger) ; 
indicates  the  elision  of  a  vowel,  or  a  mere  suggestion  of  a  vowel  sound,  as  in  Ypres  (e'pr'). 

ACCENTS:  The  principal  or  primary  accent  is  indicated  by  a  heavy  mark  ('),  and  the  secondary  accent  by  a  lighter 
mark  (') ;  thus,  linuvines  (boo'ven');  Massachusetts  (maVd-choo'se'ts). 

NOTE. — French  names  have  the  primary  accent  on  the  final  full  syllable,  but  this  accent  should  generally  be  very  slight. 
The  other  syllables  are  marked  with  equal  stress.  In  German  names,  the  principal  accent  is  placed  earlier  in  the  word,  as  in 
English.  In  Hungarian  and  Bohemian  names,  the  accent  is  on  the  first  syllable.  In  Polish,  as  in  Italian,  the  accent  is  on  the 
penult.  In  Russian,  the  accent  is  capricious  but  very  marked. 


Aachen  (or  Aix-la-Chapelle),  a'K?n 

Aalst  (or  Alost),  alst 

Abbeville,  ab'vel' 

Abee,  a'ba' 

Acheux,  a'shu' 

Achicourt,  a'sht'kdor' 

Achiet,  a'shv'3' 

Acossee,  a'ku'sa' 

Acoz,  a'ko' 

Acq,  ak 

Adelsberg,  a'd«s-b?« 

Adige  (river),  a'de"-ja 

Adinkerke,  id'tn-kEr'ke 

Adria,  a'dre-a 

Aerschot,  iir'sKot 

Aerseele,  ar'sa'le 

Aettfrycke,  at'fre-kH 

Aehre,  a're 

Agincourt,  a'zhaN'koor' ;   Eng.   ajtn- 

kort 

Agordo,  a-gor'do 
Ahrdort,  ar'd3rf 
Ahrweller,  ar'vl-ler 
Aidin,  I-den' 
Aincreville,  aN'kr'-vel' 
Aintab,  In'tib' 
Aire,  ar 

Aisne  (river),  5n 
Aivenne,  S'vgn' 
Aix-la-Chapelle  (or  Aachen),  3ks'la'- 

sha'pgl' 
AU,  a'lii 
Albeek,  Ul'bak 
Albert,  al'bSr' 
Albesdorf,  ainjJz-dSrf 
Albona,  al-bo'na 
Aleppo,  <i  lr-i  A" 
Alexandretta   (or  Iskanderun),  al'c.  - 

zSn-dr?t'a 
Alken,  iil'ken 
Allarmont,  a'lar'mSN' 
Alle.  iil'c 
Allennes,  i'lfn' 
Allenatein,  al'?n-shtm' 
AllondreUe,  a'lSN'dreT 
Alost  (or  Aalst),  a'lost 
Alsdori,  Slz'd6rf 
Alsemberg,  iil'z?m-bSrK 
Althofen,  alt'ho'f?n 
Altkirch,  alt'kTrK' 
Altzingen,  iilt'zTng-^n 
Amance,  a'maxs' 
Amanweiler,  a'man-v7'15r 
Anibacourt,  aN'ba'koor' 
Amblimont,  aN'blf'moN' 
Ambresin,  as'br'-siN' 
Amel.  ii'iiu'l 
Amiens,  a'myiN' 
Amohines,  a'md'en' 


Amont,  a'moN' 
Amougies,  a'moo'zhe' 
Ampezzo,  iim-pSt'so 
Ancre  (river),  aN'kr" 
Anderlecht,  iin'd?r  l?Kt 
Andenne,  a'N'dSn' 
Angres,  aN'gr' 
Anhee,  an'a' 
Aniches,  a'nesh' 
Anlier,  aN'lyS' 
Anloy,  iiN'lwli' 
Anneux,  a'nfl' 
Annevois,  an'vwa' 
Anor,  a'nSr' 
Anould,  a'nool' 
Anoux,  a'noo' 
Alls,  ii.Ns 

Ansauville,  a'N'so'vel' 
Anthee,  iiN'ta' 
Antheit,  an'tlt 
Anthelupt,  aM/t?-liip/ 
AntiUy,  aN'tc'ye' 
Antioch,  Sn'tT-5k 
Antreppe,  iiN'trgp' 
Anvin,  aN'viN' 
Any,  a'ne^ 
Anzelin,  SNZ'ISN' 
Anzin,  UN'zaN' 
Appilly,  a'pe've7 
Apromont,  a'pr'-mON' 
Arbe,  arb 
Arcey,  ar's?' 
Archennes,  ar'shJn' 
Arches,  arsh 
Arco,  Sr'ko 
Ardahan,  ar'da-han' 
Ardoye,  ar'dwa' 
Argenteau,  ar'zhan'to7 
Argonne,  ar'gSn' 
Arleux,  ar'lu' 
Arlon,  ar'los' 
Armentieres,  ar'maN'tySr' 
Arnaville,  ar'na'vel' 
Arques,  ark 
Arracourt,  a'ra'koor' 
Arras,  a'ras' 
Arraye,  a'ra' 
Arry,  a're7 
Ars,  arz 

Arsdorl,  iirz'dSrf 
Artes,  art 
Artois,  ar'twa' 
Arville,  ar'vel' 
Asch,  ash 
Ascq,  ask 
Asiago,  ii'zya-g3 
Asolo,  ii'zS-lo 
Assche.  US'K? 
Assweiler,  as'vi  ler 

•338 


Ath,  at 

Athesans,  a' 

Athies,  a'te7 

Athus,  a'tii' 

Attainville,  a'tSN'vel' 

Attigny,  a'te'nye' 

Atweiler,  at'vT-l?r 

Aube  (river),  ob 

Aubel,  o'bel' 

Aubencheul,  5'baN'shul' 

Aubenton,  o'biin'toN' 

Auberive,  ob'rev' 

Aubers,  o'bar' 

Aubigny,  o'be'nye' 

Aublain,  5'blaN' 

Anchel,  o'shSl' 

Auchy,  o'she' 

Audenarde     (or    Oudenarde),    ou'd?- 

niir'dS 

Audincourt,  o'daVkoor' 
Audun,  d'dus' 
Auge,  5zh 

Angus  to  wo,  ou'g(x>s-t6'vo 
Aulnois,  ol'nwa' 
Aulnoye,  ol'nwa' 
Aumetz,  ou'm?tz 
Auronzo,  ou-ront'so 
Autel-Bas,  5'tfl'-ba' 
Autoing,  o'twaN' 
Autrey,  o'tr?7 
Auvillers,  o'ye'lar' 
Avecapelle,  av'ka'pel' 
Avelghem,  a'vel-gem 
Avennes,  a'v?n' 
Avesnes,  a'vfin' 
Aviano,  a-vya'no 
Avion,  a'vySN' 
Avioth,  a'vyy 
Avricourt,  a'vre'koor' 
Avril,  a'vrel' 
Ay,  a'S 
Ayette,  a'y?t' 
Awenne,  a'v?n' 
Azerailles,  a'z?-rS'y' 
Azoudange,  at'sou-dang'S 

Baccarat,  ba'ka'ra' 

Badia,  ba-de'a 

Baelegem,  ba'le-g?m 

Baelen,  ba'Un ;  ba'liiN' 

Bagdad  (or  Bhagdad),  bag-dad';  Eng. 

bag'dad 

Bagneux,  ban'yQ' 
Baileux,  ba'lQ' 
Bailleul,  ba'yQK 
Baisieux,  ba'zyQ' 
Baku,  ba-koo' 
Bftle  (or  Basel),  bal 
Ballersdorf,  bal'erz-dftrf 


Pronunciation  of  War  Names 


Bambrugge,  bam'br6&g/5 
Bannonville,  ba'n6N'v51' 
Bapaume,  ba'pom' 
Barbarano,  baVba-ra'iw 
Bar-le-Duc,  bar'-le-diik' 
Baroncourt,  ba'roN'koor' 
Baronville,  ba'roN'vel' 
Baronweiler,  ba'r8n-vl'ler 
Barst,  barst 
Barvaux,  bar'vo' 
Basooup,  ba'kcx/ 
Basel  (or  Bale),  b 
Basra  (or  Busra),  bus'ra 
Bassano,  bas-sa'no 
Bassee,  La,  la'  ba'sa' 
Bastogne,  bas'tSn'y' 
Batilly,  ba'te'ye' 
Batum,  ba-toom' 
Baudrecourt,  bo'dr'-k5or' 
Bauffe,  bof 
Baugnies,  bo'nye' 
Baulon,  bo'lon' 
Bautersem,  bou'ter-sem 
Bavay,  ba'vg' 
Bazeilles,  ba'za'y] 
Beaucourt,  bo'koor' 
Beaumetz,  bo'mgs' 
Beaumont,  bo'm3N' 
Beauquesne,  bo'kSn' 
Beauraing,  bo'raN' 
Beaureyoir,  bo're-vwa' 
Beauvais,  bo'ye7 
Beauval,  bo'val' 
Beauvillers,  bo've'lar' 
Bebing,  ba'btng 
Bechy,  bgic'S 
Beckmgen,  beVTng-2n 
Becquevoort,  bgk'vort' 
Beeringen,  ba'rlng-en 
Beernem,  bar'nSm 
Beerst,  barst 
Beine,  bin 
Beinheim,  bln'hlm 
Beirut  (or  Beyrout),  ba'root' 
Belfort,  bgl'fST' 
Belgrade,  bgl'grad' 
Belief ontaine,  bel'foN'ten' 
Belleghem,  bel'e-gem 
Bellem,  bgl'Sm 
Bellevaux,  bel'vo' 
Bellicourt,  bgl'g'koor' 
Bellignles,  be-le'nye' 
Belluno,  bgl-loo'no 
Belosi,  bS-lo'se 
Belval,  bel'val' 
Belverne,  bgl'vSrn' 
Beney,  bS-nS' 
Benningen,  bSn'Ing-en 
Bensdorf,  bSnz'd5r£ 
Berchem,  bSr'K?m 
Berg,  bSric 

Berlaimont,  Wr'lg'moN' 
Bernecourt,  bgrn'koor' 
Bernissart,  bSr'ng'sar' 
Bernweiler,  bern'vt-ler 
Berquette,  bSr'k?t' 
Bertincourt,  bSr'tiiN'koor' 
Bertogne,  ber'tSn'y' 
Bertrichamps,  bSr'tre'shaN' 
Bertrix,  berare' 
Berzee,  bgr'za' 
Besancon,  be'zan'soN' 
Bethonvilliers,  be-toN've'yar' 
Bethune,  ba'tun' 
Bettainvillers,  be'taN've'lar' 
Beuthen,  boi'tSn 
Bettemberg,  bet'em-b5rK 
Beverloo,  bSv'er-15' 
Beverst,  bSv'erst 
Beyrout  (or  Beirut),  ba'root' 
Bhagdad  (or  Bagdad),  bag-dad' 
Bialystok,  bya'H-stSk 
Bienville,  byaN'vel' 
Biesme,  be'Sm' 
Biestre,  be'gs'tr' 
Bievre,  be'av'r' 
Bihain,  be'aN' 
Bilsen,  bil'sen 
BUly,  bc'ye' 


Binche,  baNsh 

Bioncourt,  byoN'koor' 

Bionville,  by3N'vel' 

Bisten,  bls'ten 

Bitburg,  btt'boorK 

Bitschweiler,  bit'shvi'ler 

Biwer,  be'va' 

Blandain,  blaN'dSN' 

Blagny,  bla'nye' 

Blainont,  bla'moN' 

Blaregnies,  bla'ra'nye7 

Blaton,  bla'toN' 

Bleialf,  bli'alf 

Bleiburg,  bli'bd6rK 

Bleid,  blid 

Blenod,  ble'no' 

Bloemendaele,  bloo'men-da'15 

Blumenthal,  bl66'm?n-tal 

Bockryck,  bSk'rek 

Boelhe,  bool'S 

Boesinghe,  boo'slng-e 

Boevange,  bo5'vang-e 

Bohaiii,  bS'aN' 

Boisleiix,  bwa'lu' 

Boisraont,  bwa'mSN' 

Boltweiler,  bolt'vi-ler 

Bomal,  bo'mal' 

Bomy,  bo'me' 

Boncourt,  boN'koor' 

Bonhome,  Wnftm' 

Bonlez,  bSN'lg' 

Bonnes,  bSn 

Bonucville,  bon'vel' 

Bonnevoye,  bSn'wva' 

Bonviller,  boN've'ya' 

Boom,  bom 

Borg,  b6rK 

Borgo,  bSr'go 

Borsbeke,  bSrz'ba-ke 

Bosphonis  (or  Bosporus),  bos'pS-rfis 

Bosseval,  bos'val' 

Botoshani,  bo-to  shan'y' 

Botzen,  b6t's?n 

Bouchain,  boo'shaN' 

Bouchout,  boo'shso' 

Bouconville,  boo'koN'vel' 

Boucq,  book 

Boudour,  b65'door' 

Bougnies,  boo'nye' 

Bouillon,  bSo'yoN' 

Boulers,  boo'lar' 

Boulogne,  boo'lfin'y' ;  Eng.  bi56-lon' 

Boult,  bool 

Bouquemaison,  book'ma'zoN' 

Bourbourg,  boor'boor' 

Bourcy,  boor'se' 

Bourdonnay,  b65r'd8'na' 

Bourg-Bruche,  boorK'-br66K'e 

Bourg-Fidele,  boor'-fe'dal' 

Bourgpgne,  b6T5r'g3n'y' 

Boursies,  boor'se' 

Boussy,  boS'se' 

Bousval,  boSs'val' 

Bouverie,  boov'rS' 

Bouvignes,  boo'vSn'y' 

Bouvigny,  bOo've'nye' 

Bouvines,  boo'ven' 

Bouvron,  boo'vr3N' 

Bouxidres,  boo'zySr' 

Boves,  b5v 

Bovigny,  bS've'nye' 

Bovrinnes,  bft'vrm' 

Bra,  bra 

Brabant-le-roi,  bra'baN'-le-rwa' 

Braffe,  braf 

Braila,  bra-e'la 

Braine,  bran 

Braine-le-Comte,  bran'-le-k6Nt' 

Braives,  brSv 

Brancbon,  braN'shoN' 

Brand,  brant 

Braquis,  bra'ke' 

Bras,  bra 

Bratte,  brat 

Braunsberg,  brounz'b?rK 

Braux,  br5 

Bray,  brg 

Bray-sur-Seine,  brS'-siir'-sSn' 

Bray-sur-Somme,  brg'-sur'-s5m' 

339 


Breganze,  bra-gant'sa 

Brenta  (river),  bren'ta 

Brest-Litovsk,  brgst'-lye-tSfsk' 

Bretton,  brgt'on 

Brie,  bre 

Briey,  bre'g' 

Brin,  braN 

Brionl  brS-o'ne 

Brixen,  brik'sen 

Brouay,  broo'e7 

Brouck,  brouk 

Brouckirk,  brou'kTrk 

Brouveliers,  broov'lyar' 

Bruay,  bru'g' 

Bniges,  bruzh 

Bruly-de-Pesche,  briKle/-de-pash' 

Brusa  (or  Brussa),  broTi'sa 

Brussels  (or  Bruxelles),  brus'elz 

Bruxelles  (or  Brussels),  bru'sgl' 

Bruyeres,  brii'ySr' 

Bry,  bre 

Bucquoy,  bii'kwa' 

Buczacz,  boo'chach 

Buderschied,  bd5'der-shet 

Budin,  bo5'dtn 

Bug  (river),  bo&g 

Buhl,  bool 

Buire,  bwer 

Buironfosse,  bwe'rox'fSs' 

Bukharest  (or  Bucharest),  boo'kd-rSst' 

Bukowina  (Bukovina),  bo6'ko-ve'na 

Bullingen,  bdol'Ing-?n 

Bully,  bii'ye' 

Bull,  bUl 

Burano,  boo-ra'no 

Bures,  bur 

Burnhaupt,  b66rn'houpt 

Bursf ,  boorsf 

Burtscheid,  b^ort'shtt 

Busendorf,  boo'zen-d3rf 

Bushire,  b«S>-sher' 

Busigny,  bii'se'nye' 

Busra  (or  Basra),  bus'ra 

Butgenbach,  bdot'gen-baE 

Buttia,  boot'ya 

Buzegney,  bii'za'nye' 

Buzy,  bli'ze' 

Buzieres,  bii'zyar' 

Caesarea  (or  Kaisarieh),  sgs-d-re'd 

Caeskerke,  kaz-ker'kg 

Calais,  ka'lg' ;  Eng.  kal'a 

Callenelle,  kal'ngl' 

Camblain,  kaN'blaN' 

Cambrai  (or  Cambray),  kaN'brg' 

Cambrin,  kaN'braN' 

Camisano,  ka'me'-za'no 

Canfanaro,  kan'fa-na'ro 

Cantain,  kaN'taN' 

Capelle,  La,  la'  ka'pgl' 

Capodistria,  ka'p8-des'tr$-a 

Cappet,  kap'gt 

Caprino,  ka-pre'n5 

Carency,  ka'raVse' 

Carignan,  ka'ren'yaN' 

Carnieres,  kar'nyftr' 

Carole,  ka-r6'la 

Carvin,  kar'vSN' 

Cassel,  kas'gl' 

Casteau,  kas'to' 

Castelfranco,  kas-tgl'frag'ko 

Caster,  kas'ta' 

Castre,  kas'tr' 

Castua,  kas'twa 

Cateau,  Le,  le  ka'to' 

Catillon,  ka'te'yoN' 

Caudry,  ko'dre' 

Cavalese,  ka'vii-lS'za 

Cavarzere,  kii-var'dzS-ra 

Cerfontaine,  sgr'foN'tan' 

Cernavoda  (or  Tchernavoda),  chgr'na- 

vo'da 

Cernay,  sgr'ng' 

Cetinje  (or  Cettinje),  tsgt'Sn-y5 
Chalons-sur-Marne,       sha'lQN'-siir'- 

marn' 

Chalon-sur-Saflne,  sha'lON'-siir'-son' 
Charnbley,  sha^'blg' 
Cliambrey,  shaN'brg' 


Pronunciation  of  War  Names 


Champagney,  shiN'pa'nye'' 
Champigny,  shaVpe'nye' 
Chapelle,  La.  la'  sha'p£l' 
Charency,  sha'raN'sc' 
Charey,  shads' 

Cbarleroi  (or  Charleroy),  shar'U-rwa' 
Charleville,  sharl'vel' 
Charmois,  shar'mwa' 
Ohassart,  shas'ar' 
Chastre,  shas'tr' 

Chatalja  (or  Tchatalja),  cha-tal'ja 
Chateau-Regnault,  shii'to'-rf'nyo' 
Chateauroux.  sha'to'roo' 
Ohateau-Salins.  sha'to'-sa'laN' 
Chateau-Thierry,  sha'to'-tyS're' 
Chatel,  sha'teT 
Chatelet,  shiit'le' 
Chatillon,  shS'te'yoN' 
Chatillon-sur-Marne,     sha'te'yCs'- 
siir'-marn' 

Chaudelontalne,  shod'ios'tan' 
Chaulnes.  sho'n' 
Chaumont,  sho'mON' 
Chauny,  sho'ne7 
Cliauvency,  sho'vaVse' 
Chauz,  sho 
Cheneo,  she-rig' 
Chenevidres,  she'n'vyar' 
Chenicourt,  sh?-ne'koor/ 
Cberain,  shf'rSN' 
Cherso,  kgr'so 
Chievres,  shS'g'vr' 
Chimay,  she'm?' 
Chiny,  she'ne' 
Chioggia,  kyod'ja 
Clney,  se'n?' 
Cittadella.  chet'tS-del'la 
Clvldale,  che'vi-da'12 
Clary,  kll're' 
Clavier,  kla'vya' 
Clemency,  kl5m'an'se/ 
Clerken,  kleVkSn 
Clermont,  kleVmSn' 
Clervaux,  kle'r'vo' 
Cleurie,  kia'r?' 
Clezentaine,  kl?z'aN'tSn' 
Codroipo,  kSn 
Coingt,  kwiN 
Colroy,  k81'rwS 
Combles,  kos'bl' 
Comines,  kfi'men' 
Commercy,  k8'm2r'se/ 
Compiegns,  kON'pySn'y' 
Conde,  kSs'da' 
Conegliano,  ko'n$l-ya'no 
Conflans,  kos'tliis' 
Cons,  k8Ns 
Conselve,  k8n-s?l'v5 
Constanta  (or  Kustendje),  k8n-stan'tsa 
Corbais,  kSr'W 
Corbeek  Loo,  kSr'bak  lo 
Corbion,  k6r/by8N/ 
Corceuil,  kSr'sQ'v' 
Corcieux,  kSr'sya' 
Corey,  kfir'se7 
CornieviUe,  kfir'ne'vel' 
Cornimont,  kfir'ne'mflN' 
Corravillers,  k8'ra've'iar/ 
Cortemarck,  k8r't2-mark 
Cortessem,  k8r't,xs-fm 
Cortina,  kUr-tf'na 
Coucy,  k65'se' 
Coucy-le— Chateau,  kCo'se 
Coulommiers,  koo'l&'mya' 
Coulonges,  koo'loxzh' 
Oourcelles-Chaussy,  koor'sJl'-shC'se' 
Courrieres,  k6o'r>'ar/ 
Courtemont,  koTirt'mSN' 
Courtrai,  kSBr'tr?' 

Court-St.-f5tienne,  koor'-s5N/-ta/ty5n' 
Couvin,  koS'vSs' 
Cracow  (or  Krakow),  kra'ku 
Craiova  (or  Craiova),  kra-yo'vi 
Craonne,  kra'dn' 

Crecy  (or  Cressy),  kra'se' ;  Eng.  kr5sT 
Cr6cy-sur-Serre,  kra-se'-sur'-sar' 
Crevio,  krg'vJk' 
Crimea,  krT-me'd ;  krt-me'd 


Croisilles,  krwa'sel' 
Croismare,  krwa'maV 
Croix.  krwli 
Crombeke.  krdm'ba-kS 
Crupet,  krii'p^ 
Cucsmes,  kwfm 
Cuiuchy,  kwSs'she 
Cul-des-Sarts,  kul'-df'-sar' 
Custines,  klis'tcn' 
Cysoing,  sf'swas' 
Czenstochowa,  ch?N'st6-ko'va 
Czemowitz,  chgr'nd-vlu 

Dagny.  da'nye' 

Dagonville,  da'nos'vel' 

Daleiden,  da-IT'd?n 

Dalheim,  dal'hlm 

Dalstein.  dal'shtln 

Dainas  da'ma' 

Damascus,  <ld-mas'k«s 

Damerkirch,  di'mUr-Un 

Dammartin,  duN'mar'tis' 

Damvillers,  diiN've'yS' 

Daniele,  dii-nya'la 

Danjoutin,  ila 

Danne,  dan'n? 

Danzig  (<>r  Dantzic),  dan'tsTk 

Dardanelles,  dar'dd-nflz' 

Darhamps,  dar'Us' 

Darmont,  dar'm3N' 

Dedeagatch   (or  Dedeagach),  df-dc'u 

gach' 

Deerlyck,  dar'lek 
Delatyn  (pass),  d5-la'tTn 
Delle,  d?l 
Dehne.  dcl'nie 
Denain,  de-nas' 
Dendermonde  (or  Termonde),  dfn'Jer 

m8n'dS 

Dergneau.  dJr'nyo' 
Desvres,  d2v''r' 

Diarbokr  (or  Diarbekir),  dc-ar'b?k"r 
Dickebusch,  dTk'S-bus 
Diedenhoien   (or  Thienville)    dCMcn 

ho'f2n 

Dieulouard.  dyd'loo'ar' 
Dieuze,  dyQz 

Ditterdingen,  d!f'?r-dTng'?n 
Dignano,  dt-nya'no 
Dijon,  df'zh3N' 
Dinant,  dc'na'N' 
Dippach,  dlp'aK 
Dlxmude,  deks'miid' ;  df  rniid' 
Dnieper  (river),  ne'per 
Dniester  (river),  nes'tSr 
Dolleren,  d31'?r-?n 
Dombasle,  dos'bal' 
Dommartin,  dSs'rnar'tSN' 
Dommary,  da.s'ma're' 
Doinpairc, 
Don,  du.v 
Doncourt,  dd 
Dongelberg, 
Donjontin,  dSs-'ootin 
Dormans,  dflr'maN' 
Dqrnach,  dur'na'K 
Douai  (or  Douay),  do&'a' 
Doullens,  doo'liis' 
Drave  (river),  drii'v? 
Drohobycz,  drfi-ho'bkh 
Drouville,  droo'vel' 
DubnO,  dool/nu 
Dukla.  do6k'la 
Dunkirk,  dQn-kQrk' 
Durazzo,  dd&-rat'so 
Durbuy,  diir'boi' 
DUren,  dii'r^n 

Eberstein,  5'b?r-shtTn 
Ebersweiler,  a'bcrs -vT'lcr 
Ebly,  a'ble' 

Echternach,  gK'ter-nax 
Ecly,  C'kle' 
Ecoivres,  a'kwa'vr' 
Ecossines,  a'kfi'sen' 
Ecouviez,  alcoS'vya' 
Edeghem.  a'd^-g^m 
Edingen,  a'dlng-^n 

M) 


Eecke,  a'k? 

Eecloo,  3-klo' 

Eessen,  a's^n 

Eglingeu.  eg'ITng-^n 

El  Kuds  (or  Jerusalem),  el  koodz 

Ellezelles,  f  1'zf  1' 

Elsenborg,  51'z?n-bCrK 

Elouges,  a'loozh' 

Eloyes,  a'lwa' 

Elverdinghe,  fl'ver -dins'? 

Embken,  5mp'k»o 

Enghien,  a.s'gS.s' 

Enos,  a'nos 

Entroeungt,  as'tr^'flN' 

Epernay,  a'pir'nf 

Epinal,  a'|)€'nal' 

Epirus.  c  i<T'r6i 

Eppe  Sauvage,  ?p'  so'vazb' 

Erdorl,  frMCrf 

Eregli,  fr'?-t;le' 

Erivan.  fr'c-saii' 

Ermeton,  Sr'm^-toN' 

Erueuville,  cr'nu'vCl' 

Ernonheld,  f  r'n^n  hf  Id 

Erpent,  f  r'pas' 

Erpion.  f r'pyfl.s' 

Erpoin,  er'pwiis' 

Erquelinne«,  erk'lfn' 

Errouville,  cr'Cio'vel' 

Ertvelde.  frt'vcl  de 

Ervilliers,  C-r'vC'yar' 

Erzingan,  Jr'zln-K'an' 

Erzerum,  5rz-r66m' 

Escaudain,  es'ku'di.s' 

Esch.  fsh 

Eschweiler,  fsh'vMSr 

Esnes,  an 

Esneux,  fs'nd' 

Espierres,  gs'pyar' 

Esqueheries,  fs'ke-re' 

Essey,  es'6' 

Estaires,  Cs-tar' 

Esti,  es'15 

Estiunes.  fs'tTn' 

Estre  Blanche,  tVtr'-blassh' 

Etain,  a'ti.s' 

EtaUe,  5'tal' 

Etival,  a'tt-'val' 

Ettelbruck,  gt'?l-bro6k 

Ltueffont,  a'tii'fuN' 

Eulmont,  Gl'mos' 

Eupen,  oi'p^n 

Euphrates  (river),  fl-fri'tez 

Evcrbecq,  fv'Jr'Wk' 

Evergem,  a'vgr-g?m 

Evette,  a'v?t' 

Eydtkuhnen,  Tt-ko3'n?n 

Eynatten,  T-nat'2n 

Eyne,  T'ne 

Eysden,  Is'd^n 

Falaen,  fa'lan' 

Falisollo,  fa'lfsol' 

Falmagne,  fal'man'y' 

Famars,  fa'mSr' 

Famillaveux,  fa'mel'a'vfl' 

Farschweiler,  farsh'vT-l?r 

Faulx,  fo 

Fauvillers,  W've'lar' 

Fays  Dillot, 

Feignies,  fe'nye' 

Feltre,  fJl'trS 

Feluy,  fMoi' 

Fepin.  fa'paN' 

F6re,  La,  la'  far' 

Fere-Champenoise,  far'-shaN'p?-nwaz' 

Fere— en-Tardenois,  ffir'-aN'-tard'nwa' 

Ferridre,  fc'rylr' 

Ferte-Gaucher,  La.  la'  f?r't5'-go'sha' 

Fe£te-sous-Jouarre,  La,   la'  ffr'ta'- 

so6'-zh67>'ar' 
Fianona,  fya-no'na 
Filsdori,  fflz'dorf 
Finnevaux,  fln'vo' 
Fins,  fass 
Fiume,  fyoo'ma 


Pronunciation  of  War  Names 


Flawinne,  fla'vTn' 

Fleurbaix,  flflr'bg' 

Fleury,  flu're' 

Fleville,  fle'vel' 

Fligneux,  fle'nyd' 

Flines,  flen 

Flirey,  fle'r?' 

Flobecq,  flo'bgk' 

Florennes,  (15'rSn' 

Florenville,  flS'raN'vel' 

Florae,  flS'r5' 

Fontaine,  fox'tgn' 

Fontenay,  foNt'ng' 

Fontenoy.  foNt'nwa' 

Fontoy,  foN'twa' 

Fonzaso,  f8n-tsa'zo 

Forrieres,  fS'ryar' 

Fosse,  f6s 

Fouchy,  foc'shS' 

Foucogney,  fod'kon'yg' 

Foug,  foo 

Fougerolles,  f<55zh'r61' 

Fourmies,  foor'me' 

Foville,  fS'vel' 

Fraire,  frar 

Fraise,  friz 

Fraize,  frSz 

Framieres,  fra'myar' 

Framont,  fra'moN' 

Frecourt,  fra'koor' 

Freisdorf,  friz'dorf 

Fresno,  frgn 

Fresnes-en-Woe'vre,  fren'-an'-v8'ev'r 

Fresnoy,  fre'nwa' 

Fretin,  fre-tSN' 

Frendenburg,  froi'd&i-bdorK 

Freux,  frQ 

Prevent,  fra'vSN' 

Frevillers,  fra've'lar' 

Fribourg,  fre'bSoric 

Fricourt,  frg'koor' 

Friesach,  fre'zaic 

Frisang,  WzaV 

Froidchapelle,  frwa'sha'p?!' 

Fromelles,  fr8'mel' 

Frouard,  froo'ar' 

Fumay,  fii'rng' 

Furnaux,  fur'no' 

Fumes,  liirn 

Gaesbeek,  gazHjak 
Gail  (river),  gal 
Galatz,  ga'lats 
Galicia,  gd-ltsh'I-d 
Gallaix,  ga'le' 
Gallipoli,  gal-le'p5-l« 
Gammerages,  gam'razh' 
Gand  (or  Ghent),  gaN 
Gargnano,  gar-nya'no 
Gavis,  ga'fls 
Gavrelle,  ga'vrgl' 
Gaza  (or  Ghazzeh),  ga'zo 
Geet  Betz,  g5t  b?ts 
Gelinden,  gel'Yn-d#n 
Gelucourt,  ga'loo-k6ort 
Gembloux,  zhSN'bloS' 
Gemona.  ja-mo'na 
G6monville,  zha'm8N'vel' 
Gemund,  ga'mo6nt 
Genappe,  zh?-nap' 
Gerardmer,  zha'rar'ma' 
Gerbepal,  zherb'pal' 
Gerbeviller,  zherb've'ya' 
Gerouville,  zha'roo'vel' 
Gesponsart,  zhe'poN'sar' 
Ghazzeh  (or  Gaza),  guz'g 
Ghent  (or  Gand),  g6nt 
Ghistelles,  ge'stel' 
Ghyvelde,  ge-vel'de 
Gibecq,  zhe'belc' 
Gildweiler,  gelt'vl-15r 
Girecourt,  zher'kOTir' 
Giromagny,  zhS'rfi'ma'nye' 
Gironville,  zhe'r8N'vel' 
Givenchy,  zhe'vaN'she' 
Givet,  zhe'vg' 
Glvry,  zhe'vre' 
Gladbeek,  glad'bak 
Gleiwitz,  gll'vlts 


Glimes.  glem 
Glons,  g!6N 
Gmiind.  g'miint 
Gnesen,  g'na'z?n 
Godarville,  g8'dar'vel' 
Gogney,  gS'nye' 
Golbey,  gSl'bg' 
Gondrecourt,  goN'dr'-koor' 
Gondreville.  Kou'dr'-vel' 
Gorcy,  g8r'se' 

Gorizia  (or  Gorz),  g3-rld'ze  a 
Gorgue,  La,  la'  gorg' 
Gbrz  (or  Gorizia),  gflrts 
Gosselies^gSs'le' 
Gouvy,  goo've' 
Gouy.  gw5 
Gradisca,  gra-des'ka 
Grado,  gra'do 
Graide,  grad 
Graincourt,  grSN'koor' 
flrammnnt   pr.Vmnv' 


Grandvoir,  graVvwa 
Granges,  graNzh 
Graty,  sra'te' 
Gravelines,  grav'len' 
Gravelotte,  grav'18t' 
Grembergen,  grem'bgr-g?n 
Grenay,  grg'ng' 
Greux,  grfl 

Grevenmacher,  gra'vfa-maK'er 
Grimnee,  graN'na' 
Gruchten,  grooK't^n 
Grupont,  grii'p6N' 
Gueblange,  gub'lang-e 
Guebweiler,  giib'vl-ler 
Guentrangen,  giin'trang-gn 
Guewenheim,  gii'vgn-hlm 
Guiscard,  gez'kar' 
Guise,  giiez' 
Gulpen,  gd61'p?n 
Guinbinnen,  gd6m-btn'?n 
Gundolsheim,  goon'ddlz-hTm 
Gussainville,  gu'saN'vel' 

Habay-la-Vieille,  a'bg'-la'-ve'i'y' 

Hablainville,  a'blSN'vel' 

Habonville,  a'b6N'vel' 

Hachy,  a'she' 

Hadol,  a'dft' 

Hadonville,  a'dSN'vel' 

Hacht,  haKt 

Haesdonck,  has'dSrjk 

Hal,  hal 

Hallaer,  hal-lar' 

Hallainville,  a'UN'vcK 

Hailing,  hal'Ing 

Halma.  hal'ma 

Halsdorf ,  halz'd3rf 

Hamah,  ha'ma 

Hamme,  ham'5 

Hamoir,  a'mwa' 

Hamonville,  am'SN'vel' 

Han,  ban 

Hannapcs,  a'nap' 

Hanret,  aN'rS' 

Haraucourt,  a'rS'koor' 

Harcigny,  ar'se'nye' 

Hargicourt,  ar'zhS'koor' 

Hargnies,  ar'nyE' 

Harlebeke,  har'ie-ba'k? 

Harmignies,  ar'me'nye' 

Harnes,  arn 

Harre,  ar 

Harville,  ar'vel' 

Hary,  a'rC' 

Hasnon,  as'noN' 

Haspres,  as'pr' 

Hasticre,  as'tyar' 

Hatrize,  a'trez' 

Haubourdine,  o'boor'den' 

Haudemont,  5d'moN' 

Hanssy,  o'se' 

Hautchin,  r/shSs' 

Haul  Fays.  5'  te' 

Hautmont,  5'mSN' 

Havangen,  ha'fang-?n 

Havay,  a'vg' 

341 


Havre  (Fr.  Le  Havre),  ha'ver ;    F r.  K 

av'r" 

Hayange  (or  Hayingen),  a'ya'Nzh' 
Hayingen  (or  Hayange),  hl'Ing-fa 
Hazcbrouck,  az'broCk' 
Heer,  bar 

Heiderschied,  hl'der-shet 
Heimbach,  htm'baK 
Heimsbrunn,  hTmz'brd6n 
Heinerschied,  hT'ncr-shet 
Helene,  a'lHn' 

Helgoland  (or  Heligoland).  hgl'g8-lant 
Hellebeeg,  hel'e-baK 
Hellemmes,  gl'gm' 
Hern,  aN 
Henin,  a'nSN' 
Hennemont,  gn'moN' 
Henripont,  aN're'pSN' 
Herbesthal,  hSr'bgz-tal 
Herbeumont,  er'bd'mSN' 
Herbeyiller,  grb've'15' 
Herchies,  gr'she' 
Herent,  ha'r?nt 
Herenthals,  ha'r?n-tals 
Herenthout,  ha'r?nt-out 
Hergarlen,  hgr'gar-l?n 
Hergenrath,  hgr'g?n-rat 
Hergnies,  er'nye' 
Hericourt,  a're'koor' 
Heristal  (or  Herstal),  a're'stal' 
Hermies,  gr'me' 
Herrines,  g'ren' 
Herseux,  gr'sfl' 
Hersin,  er'sSN' 
Herstal  (or  Heristal),  her'stal 
Herzegovina,  her'tsg-g8-ve'na 
Herzheira,  hgrts'hlm 
Hesdin,  gs'dSN' 
Hestrnd,  gs'tru' 
Heuchin,  Q'sbaN' 
Heudicourt,  O'de'koor' 
Heusweiler,  hoiz'vl-15r 
Heusy,  fl'se' 
Heverle,  a'ver'la' 
Heyst,  htst 

Kinckange,  hen'kang-g 
Hinges,  SNZ!I 
Hirson,  er'sSN' 
Hives,  ev 
Hody,  8'de' 
Hofen,  h5'f?n 
Hoffeld,  ho'fglt 
Hogne,  8n'y' 
Hollebeke,  hol'e-ba'kS 
Hollenthal,  hol'en-tal 
Hollerich,  h61'gr-lK 
Holluin,  8'lwaN' 
Holsbeek,  hSlz'bak 
Hombeek,  h8m'bak 
Hom6court,  8'ma'k66r' 
Hompre,  SN'pr' 
Hon,  r>s 

Hondschoote,  hond'sho-tS 
Hooglede,  ho'gla-dg 
Horodenka,  h5'r8-dgg'ka 
Horpmael,  horp'mal 
Houdain,  oo'daN' 
Houdremont,  ou'dr'-moN' 
Houplines,  oop'len' 
Hoax,  66 
Houyet,  66'yg' 
Huiron,  we'r8N' 
Huldenberg,  h6ol'd?n-bg« 
Huppaye,  ii'pa' 
Huy,  hoi 

Ichteghem,  tK'te-g?m 

Iddergem,  Td'er-g&n 

Idrla,  e'dre-a 

Igny,  e'nye' 

Illangen,  el'5ng-?n 

Illy,  e'ye' 

Incouft,  aNTcoor' 

Inden,  tn'd^n 

Ingelmunster,  Tr/gH-mun'ster 

Ire,  5r 

Iseghem,  Yz'2-ggm 

Iskanderun  (or  Alexandretta),  ls-kin'- 


Pronunciation  of  War  Names 


Ismailla,  t*'nA-9fjl 
Itegem,  Tt'e  j$?m 
Itterbeeh,  It'Sr-bik 
litre.  e'tr! 

Ivangorod,  J-van'g8-ro't 
Izel,  S'zfl 
Izler,  e'zya' 

Jabbeke,  yab'a-k? 

Jallet.  zha'l?' 

Jamagne,  zha'man'y' 

Jamboli  (or  Yamboli),  yam'M-18 

JametZ,  rha'mfs' 

Jamoignes.  zha'mwan'y' 

Jarny.  zhar'nc' 

Jaroslaw  (or  Jaroslau),  ya-r&s'laf 

Jarville,  zhar'vcl' 

Jassy  (or  Yassy),  yasf 

Jaulny.  zhol'n?' 

Jeandcllze,  zhaVdS  lez' 

Jeantes,  zha'frt 

Jedda  (or  Jidda),  jgd'd 

Jehay,  zhf-?' 

Jemappe,  zh?  map' 

Jenlafn,  zhhVlas' 

Jerusalem  (or  El  Kuds),  je'-rSa'sd-le'm 

Jeumont.  zhQ'mfiN' 

Jidda  (or  Jedda),  jld'd 

Jodoigne.  zhJVdwan'y' 

Joeuf .  zhQ'iif' 

Joncherey,  zhfiN'sbZ-r!? 

Jonville,  zboVveV 

Jouarre,  zhSo'ar' 

Junglinster,  yoong'lTn-ster 

JuniVille,  zhu'ne'vel' 

Juprelle,  zhii'prel' 

Jurbise,  zhur'ber' 

Juseret,  zhii's?  ra' 

Juvigny,  zhii've'nye/ 

Juville,  zhii'vel' 

Kain,  kSs 

Kaisarieh  (or  Kaisariyeh  or  Caesarca), 

kT'sa-rS'y? 

Kaisersberg,  k!'zt?rs-berz 
Kalisz,  ka'lyfsh 
Kail,  kal 

Karahissar,  ka-raTiYs-saV 
Kattecherberg,  kat'e-cher-bSnc' 
Kattenhofen.  kat'?n-ho'f?n 
Kedange,  ka'dSng-e 
Keltsy  (or  Kiclce),  kygl'tsl 
Kelz.  kflts 
Kemmel.  kfm'?l 
Kemplich,  k?mr/llK 
Kerbela,  kf  rt^-la 
Kerllng.  kfr'lTng 
Kessel,  k?s'«l 
Keyem,  k!'?m 
Kholm,  Kolm 
Khotln,  Ko'tySn 
Kiel  (or  Kiev), 
Kielce  (or  Keltsy),  kyel'ts? 
Kishinel  (or  Kishinev),  kJ-she'-nyH' 
Klagentort,  kra'g?n-fd6rt 
Klausen,  klou'z«n 
Klelnhau.  klTn'hou 
Koekelberg,  k<Wk?l-b?rK 
Kohlscheld.  kol'shit 
Koloraea,  ko'lA-ma'a 
Kommern,  kfim'Srn 
Kbnigsberg,  kfl'nTKs-b?rK 
KoveT,  ko'vfl-y' 
Kragojevatz    (or    KraguyevaU),    kra- 

g6B'y?-vats 
Krainberg.  krTn'bSrK 
Krakow  (or  Cracow),  kra'ko 
Krath,  krat 

Krautscheld,  krout'shTt 
Kremenchng  (or  Krementchug),  krfm'- 

?n-ch*k' 

Kremnltz,  kr?m'ntts 
Kreuzan.  kroi'tsou 
Kronenberg,  kro'n?n-b?nt 
Kuds,  El  for  Jerusalem),  el  kd6dz 
Kur  (or  Kura,  river),  k<55r;  koS'ra 
Kurisches  Haff.  koo'rTsh-fs  haf 
Kustendje  (or  Constanta),  kiis-teVje" 
Kat-el-Amara,  kdot'el-a-ma'ra 


La  Bassee.  la'  ba'sS' 

La  Capelle.  la'  ka'pfl' 

La  Ohapelle,  la'  sha'pel' 

Ladeuze,  iaMQz' 

La  Fere,  la'  far' 

La  Fere— Ohampenoise,  la'  fir'-shaV- 

La  Fer'te-Gancher,  la'  fJr'ta'-go'sha' 
La_  Fertfc-sous-Jouarre,  la'   ffr'ta'- 

s65'-zh66'ar/ 
Lagarde.  la'pard' 
Lagny.  la'n-F 
La  Gorgue.  la' 
Laibach,  IT'ha'K 
Laires.  lar 
Laison,  Ia'z6s' 
Lalx,  la 

La  Lateme,  la'  l.i'tPrn' 
Lamarche.  la'marsh' 
Lamorteau,  la'miir'tS' 
Landrecies,  la.N'dra'se' 
Landres.  jas'Hr' 
Lanefie,  la'n?f 
Langemarck.  lanV  mark' 
Langres.  las'^r' 
Languion,  ISS'KC'ON' 
Lannoy,  la'nwa' 
Laon,  la'N 
La  Panne,  la'  pan' 
La  Pinte,  la'  nSNt' 
La  Roche,  la'  rifeh' 
Latakia.  la'ta-ke^a 
Latisana.  la'tc  sa'na 
La  Trouche,  la'  troosh' 
Laumesield.  Iou'm?z-fc1t 
Lautenbach  Zell.  lou't?n-baK  tsel' 
Laveline.  lav'lcn' 
Laventie,  la'va'N'te' 
Lavoir,  la'vwa' 
La  Voivre,  la'  vwa'vr' 
Lebbeke,  IS-ba^? 
Le  Gateau,  15  ka'to' 
Ledeberg,  la'de-benc 
Ledeghem,  la'd?  gern 
Leeuw,  la'65 
Legnago,  la-nya'go 
Le  Havre,  15  av'r" 
Leidenborn.  IT'd?n-Mrn 
Le  Mans,  le  mas' 
Lembecq,  la'N'bfk' 
Lemberg  (or  Lwow),  l?mb?re 
Lendmara,  land  ma''ra 
Lens,  lass 
Levlco,  la'v?-ko 
Le  Quesnoy,  15  ka'nwa' 
Lianconrt,  IS'aN'koor' 
Llart,  15'aV 
Liban,  letxm 
Lichtenborn.  ITK'ti'n-bftrn 
Lichtervelde,  ITk'ter-v?l'd5 
Liederkerke,  le'dcr-ker'ke 
Liege,  If'ezh' 
Lienz,  le-?nts' 
Lierneux.  15'fr'nQ' 
Lierre,  If'Sr' 
Liessies,  IS'&'e' 
Iiigne,  15n'y' 
Llgneville,  15n'y'-vcl' 
Ligrty,  le'nyf 

Ligny-en-Barrois,  le'nye'-a'N'-ba'rwa' 
Lille  (or  I,isle),  Icl 
Lillers,  le'lar' 
Limbarg.  ITm'bflrK  ;  Eng. 
Limey,  le'm?' 
Linden,  lln'dfti 
Linne,  ITn 

Lironville,  le'roN'^-el' 
Livenza  (river).  l?-vfnt'sa 
Liverdun,  le'vfr'duN' 
Lirieres,  le'zyar' 
Locon.  IS'keN' 
Lodz  (or  L6d£).  Iftdz  ;  Id6j 
Lommer,  IBm'er 
Lommersweiler.  Iftm'erz-vl'ler 
Lomprez,  loN'prf' 
Lomza  (or  Lomzha),  lom'zha 
Longarone.  lon'Ra-ro'na 
Longchamps.  IdN'shas' 
Longeville,  loNzh'vel' 

342 


Longlier,  los'lva' 
Longvilly,  lov'vfye' 
Longwy,  luN-'ve* 
Lonny,  15'ne' 
Loo,  1"> 
Loos,  l«-6s' 
Lophem,  lo'p^m 
Lorentzweiler,  lo'r)(nts-vT'15r 
Lorraine  (or  Lothringen),  18-ran' 
Lorry,  18'rf 
Losheim,  ISzliTm 
Lothringen  (or  Lorraine).  l 
Lotzen,  lut's^n 
Louette  St.  Denis.  loo'?t'  s5N'  d5  ne' 
Lonette  St.  Pierre,  l<5o'5t'  saN'  pyir* 
Lougres,  l<57/Rr' 
Louvaigne.  \&>'\<tn'y' 
Louvain.  loft'va.s' 
Louvignies,  165've'nye' 
Lubey,  lii'bf 

Lublin  (or  Lyublin),  lyd&'blyen 
Lucheux.  lu'sbO' 
Lucy,  lu'se7 
Liinebach.  !U'n?-baK 
LuneviUe,  lu'na'vcl' 
Lore,  liir 
Lnssin,  l<55s-sen' 
Luttange,  loot'ang-5 
Lutterbach,  loot'er-bait 
Luttre,  lu'tr' 
Lutzk  (or  Lutsk),  166tsk 
Luxembourg,  liik'saVboTir' 
Luxemburg,  luk's^ra-burg  ;  OCT.  lot>ks'- 
?m-bd&nc 

Lw6w  (or  Lemberg),  Ivd&f 
Lys  (river),  les 

Machccourt,  mash'k(55r/ 
MAcon.  ma'kos' 
Macquenoise,  mak'nwaz' 
Magneux,  ma'nyu' 
Magnieres,  ma'nyar' 
Magny.  ma'Dye7 
Mainville,  maN'vel' 
Mainz  (or  Mayence),  mints 
Mahrisch-Ostrau,  ma'rlsh-As'trou 
Maisiers,  ma'zyar' 
Maisons-Allort,  ma'zoN'-zal'for' 
Maizeray,  maz'rC' 
Maizy,  ma'ze7 
Malamocco,  ma'la-m6k'ko 
Malatia,  ma'la-te'a 
Maldegem,  mal'd?-K?m' 
Malines  (or  Mechlin),  ma'lfn' 
Malo-les-Bains,  ma'iy-la'  ban' 
Malroy.  mal'rwa' 
Malvaux,  mal'vo' 
Maizeville,  maz'vel' 
Mamers,  ma'mdr' 
Manage,  ma'nazh' 
Mance,  mass 
Manicamp,  ma'ne'kaN' 
Manneren,  man'5-r?n 
Manonvillers.  ma'n3N've'lar' 
Mans.  Le,  le  mas' 
Mantova  (or  Mantua),  man't6-ra 
Mantua  (or  Mantova),  mln'ttt-4 
MarainviUer,  ma'ras've'yS' 
Marbache,  mar'bash' 
Marche,  marsh 
Marchiennes,  mar'shyi!n' 
Marchin.  mar'shaV 
Marcinelle,  mar'sS'nel' 
Marck,  mark 
Marcoing.  marOtwau' 
Marcq.  mark 
Marenne,  ma'rJn' 
Maretz,  ma'rfs' 
Margival.  mar'zhe'val' 
Manakerke,  ma  r 
Maricourt.  ma're'k55r' 
Marienburg,  ma'-re'Sn-txS&rK 
Marleux,  ma'ryfl' 
Markirch,  maKklre 
Marlemont.  marl'mdN' 
Maries,  marl 
Marloie,  mar/lwa' 
Marly,  mar'le' 
Maroilles,  ma'rwa'/ 


Pronunciation  of  War  Names 


Maron,  ma'rdu' 

Marquin,  mar'kaN' 

Marsal,  mar'zal 

Marseille  (or  Marseilles),  mar'sSV 

Marseilles,  mar-salz' 

Mars-la— Tour,  mars'-la'-toor' 

Martincourt,  mar'taN"k6or' 

Marville,  mar'yel' 

Massemen,  mas'e-men 

Massiges.  ma'sezh' 

Maubert-Fontaine,  nw'bar'-foN'te'n' 

Maubenge,  mo'bfizh' 

Maulde,  mold 

Maxenchamp,  ma'zaVshaN' 

Mayence  (or  Mainz),  ma'yaNs' 

Mazee,  ma'za' 

Meaux,  mo 

Mecca  (or  Mekka),  melc'd 

Mechlin  (or  Malines),  mfklln 

Medernach,  ma'der-naK 

Medina,  ma-de'na 

Meerssen,  mar's?n 

Mekka  (or  Mecca),  meVd 

Melle,  me! 

Mellier,  mgl'va' 

Melreux,  mel'ru' 

Melun,  me-lflN' 

Membmggen,  mem'br<56g-&i 

Menin,  me-nan' 

Menil,  me-nel' 

Menil-la-Toor,  me-nel'-la'-tSor' 

Merbecque,  mer'beV 

Merbes,  merb 

Merchtem,  meric't&n 

Mercken,  me'r'kfti 

Mercy— le-Bas,  mei'seMe-ha' 

Mercy-le-Haut,  mgr'se'-le-o' 

Merlemont,  merl'moN' 

Mersch,  mersh 

Merval,  mer'val' 

MerviUe,  meVvel' 

Messancy,  me-saVse' 

Messein,  me-saV 

Messines,  me-sen' 

Mestre,  mSs'tra 

Metaires,  ma'tar' 

Metnitz,  met'nlts 

Metrich,  m?t'rTK 

Mettecoven,  met'e-ko'f?n 

Metz,  mets ;    FT.  mSs 

Metzeral,  m?t'se-ral 

Metzerwiese,  m?t'ser-ve'z? 

Meulebeke,  ma'le-ba'ke 

Meuse  (river),  mfiz;  Eng.  muz 

Mfezieres,  ma'zyar' 

Mirwart,  mcr'vart 

Mitrovicza  (or  Mitrovitz),  me'trft-v?t'sa 

Moerbeke,  moor'ba-ke 

Moerkerke,  moor'kSr-ke 

Moere.  moo're 

Moggio,  mod'jo 

Mohammera,  m8'hd-ma'ra 

MohiviUc,  mfi'e'veT  • 

Mohon,  mo'oN' 

Moircy,  mwar'se7 

Moldaya  (river),  mol-da'va 

Molhain,  mS'laN' 

Monasttr,  m5n/ds-ter/ 

Monceau,  mosTco' 

Moncel,  moN'sel' 

Monchy,  mSs'she' 

Mondelange,  mSn'de-lans'S 

Monlalcone,  mSn'fal-ko'na 

Mons,  moss 

Mons-en-P6v61e,  moN'-za'N'-pa'val' 

Mont,  m6N 

Montagnana,  mon'ta-nya'na 

Montbfeliard,  moN'ba'lyar' 

Montdidier,  moN'df'dya' 

Montfaucon,  moN'fS'koN' 

Montherme,  moN'term' 

Monthureux,  moN'tU'rQ' 

Montigny,  moN'te'nye' 

Montjoie,  moN'jwa' 

Montmedy.  m3N/ma'de' 

Montmirail,  moN'me'ra'y' 

Montoise,  mpN'twaz' 

Montreau  Vieux,  m6N'tro'vy(l' 

Mont-St.-Amand,  meN'-saH'-ta'maN' 


Mont-St.-Anbert,  moN'-saN'-to'bar' 

Mont-St.-Bloy,  moN'-sSN'-ta'lwa' 

Mont-St.-Jean,  mfiN'-saN'-zhaN' 

Mont-St.-Martin,  moN'-sSN'-mar'taN' 

Mont-St.— Pierre  moN'-sas'-pyar' 

Mont-St.-Remy,  meN'-saN'-ra'me7 

Montsec,  moN'sek' 

Moorslede,  mors'la-d5 

Moreuil,  mo'rfl'y' 

Morey,  m3're' 

Moriville,  mo're'vel' 

MorviUe,  moVvel' 

Mosul,  mo'sool' 

Mouaville,  moo'a'vel' 

Mouchin,  moo'shaN' 

Moulbaix,  mool'bS' 

Moulins,  moo'lSs' 

Mouscron,  moos'krfiN' 

Moustier,  moos'tya' 

Mouvaux,  moo'vo' 

Mouzay,  moo'z?7 

Moyen,  mwa'yaN' 

Moyenmoutier,  mwa'ySN'moo'tya' 

Moyenneville,  mwa'ygn'vel' 

Mozet.  m6'z?' 

Muggia,  mdod'ja 

Miilhausen,  miii'hou'zcn 

Miinster,  mun'ster 

Murville,  miir'vel' 

Mush,  moosh 

Musson,  mii'z8N' 

Muysen,  moi's?n 

Muzeray,  mii'ze-rg' 

Nadrin,  na'drSN' 

Nakhitchevan,  na'kc-cli6-van' 

Nampteuil.  na'N'tQ'y' 

Namor,  na'miir' 

Nancy,  naN'se' ;  Eng.  nan'sl 

Nandrin,  na.N'draN' 

Narew  (or  Narev,  river),  na'r?f 

Nassogne,  na's&Vy' 

Nazareth.  (Belgium)  na'za'rft' 

Nennig.  ngnlx 

Nesle,  nal 

Neubois,  nfl^jwa' 

Neuenburg,  noi'tn-boorK 

Neufchatean,  nQ'sha'to7 

Neufchatel.  nO'sha'tel' 

Neufchef,  nfi'shef 

Neuilly-sur-Marne,  nd'ye'-siir'-marn' 

Neumarkt,  noi'miirkt 

Neutitschein,  noi'ttt'shTn 

Neuve  Chapelle,  nuv'  sha'pgl' 

Nenve  Eglise,  nuv'  a'rfez' 

Neuve  Maison,  nuv'  ma'zSN' 

Neuves  Maisons,  nfiv  ma'zon' 

Neuville,  nu'vcl' 

Neuweiler,  noi'vT-ler 

Niekirchen,  ne'ker/K?n 

Niel,  nel 

Nieuport,  ne'6o-p<5rt 

Nikolaief  (or  Nikolayev),  nye'kS  la'ygf 

NImes  (or  Nismes),  nem 

Ninove,  ne'nfiv' 

Nivelles,  n^v?!' 

Nives,  nev 

Noerdange,  noor'dans-e 

Noirefontaine,  nwar'foN't?n' 

Noirval,  nwar'val' 

Noisy-le— Sec,  nwa'ze'-le-s?k' 

Noreuil,  nfi'ru'y' 

Norroy-le-Sec,  n8'rwa'-le  s£k' 

Norvenich.  nftr'fe-niK 

Nouzon,  noo'zoN' 

Noville.  n8'vel' 

Novogeorgievsk,  n6'v6-g£-6r'gf-ygfsk 

Noyelle,  nwa'y?!' 

Noyen,  nwa'yaN' 

Obaix,  80)5' 
Oberbruck,  o'bcr-br66K 
Obersgegen,  o'berz-ga'gfti 
Ober-Weiler,  o'ber-\T'lcr 
Ober-Weiss,  o'ber-vls' 
Occoches,  S'kosh' 
Ochamps,  8'shaN' 
Octringen,  8k'trYng'2n 
Oderen,  6'de-r?n 

343 


Oderzo,  8-dert's3 
Oedelem,  66'de-15m 
Ofley,  8'f?' 
OgeviUer,  Szh've'ya' 
Ogy,  6'zhe' 
Chain,  Sin' 
Ohey,  S'?' 
Oignies,  wa'nye' 
Oise  (river),  waz 
Oisy,  wa'zj7 
Ollignies,  o'le'nye' 
Olloy,  8'lwa' 
Olmiitz,  61'miits 
Olzheim,  51ts'hTm 
Omicount  8^0^60^ 
Onnaing,  8'naN' 
Oombergen,  om'b?r-gfti 
Oostacker,  ost'ak'er 
Oostcamp.  ostTcamp/ 
Oostkerke.  ost'k5r-k5 
Opont,  8'p6N' 
Oppy,  8'pe/ 
Orbey,  Sr'bg' 
Orchies,  Sr'she' 
Orchimont,  Sr'she'mSN' 
Orcq,  8rk 
Origny.  8're'nyF 
Ornel,  Sr'nel' 
Orsay,  or's£' 
Orsera,  8r-sa'ra 
Orval,  Sr'val' 
Ossero,  8s-sa'r8 
Ostiglia,  8s-tel'ya 
Ostrog,  os-tr8K' 
Ostrow,  os'trSf 
Ottendorf,  8t'?n-d8rf 
Ottignies,  o'te'nyS' 
Ottingen,  8t1ng-2n 
Onchez,  oo'sha' 

Oudenarde     (or    Audenarde),    ou'de- 
nar'de 

Oudler,  ood'la' 
Ouflet,  oo'fa' 
Ouire,  wer 
Ourcq  (river),  oork 
Ourthe  (river),  oort 

Padova  (or  Padua),  pa'dft-vS 

Padua  (or  Padova),  pad'u-d 

Pa  guy,  pa'nye' 

Pagnies,  pa'nye' 

Pago,  pa'go 

Paliseul,  pa'le'sOl' 

Palmanova.  pal'ma-no'va 

Pange,  pang'e 

Panne,  La,  la  pan' 

Pannes,  pan 

Parenzo,  pa-r?nt'so 

Paris,  pSrTs ;  FT.  pa're* 

Parroy,  pa'rwa' 

Pas-de-Calais,  pa'-de-ka'15' 

Passchendaele,  pas'k?n-dii'15 

Patignies,  pa'te'nye' 

Pattingen,  patlng-en 

Paturages,  pa'tu'razh' 

Paxonne,  pa'z8n' 

Pecq,  pelc 

Pelingen,  pa'lTne-^n 

Pellestrina,  p21'l?s-tre'na 

Peltre,  pel'tra 

Pepinster,  pepTn-st?r 

Perck,  p5rk 

Peremysl  (or  PrzemySl),  pg-rg'mlshl-y' ; 

psh£'mlshl-y' 
Perl,  perl 
Pernes,  p?rn 
Peronne,  pa'rSn' 
Perthes,  p?rt 
Peschiera,  pa-skya'ra 
Petersbach,  pa'terz-bas 
Petingen,  p5tTng-?n 
Petit-Croix,  pe-te'-krwa' 
Petit-Magny.  pe-te'-ma'nye' 
Petitmont,  pe  te'm6N' 
Petrokov  (or  Piotrk6w),  py?'tr5-kdf 
Peuthy,  pQ'te' 
Peuvillers,  pQ've'lar' 
Pfaffenheim,  pfaf'?n-hTm 
Pfetterhausen,  offt'er-hou'zln 


Pronunciation  of  War  Names 


Phillppeville,  fe'Iep'vfl' 

Phlin,  fliN 

Placenta,  pyS-chent'sa 

Piave  Criver),  pya'va 

Picardy,  plk'ar-dl 

Plerrefonds,  pyir'fos' 

Pierrepont,  pyir'pfiN' 

Pletro,  pyf'tro 

Pleve  di  Cadore,  pyJ'vJ  <tt  ka-dd'ra 

Pilken,  pll^en 

Pillon,  pe'y8N' 

Pinte,  La,  la'  pant 

Piotrkdw  (or  Petrokov),  pyotr'kd&f 

Plove,  pyo'va 

Piraeus,  pl-re'fis 

Pirano,  pe'-rii'no 

Pitthem.  pTt'Sm 

Plainlalgn,  plaVfaV 

Plancher-les-Mines,   plaN'sha'-la 
men' 

Plasscbendaele,  plasTcfn-dii'l? 

Plombieres,  plSs'byar' 

Podgorze.  pdd-g65'zhe' 

Poelcapelle,  pool'ka'pa' 

Poitiers,  pwa'tyS' 

Poix,  nwa 

Poix-St.-Hubert,  pwa'-sa'N'-tu'bar' 

Pola.  po'la 

Pollenr.  pS'lQr' 

Pont-a-Cellcs,  poN'-ia'-sel' 

Pont-a-Marcq,  p6N'-ta'-mark' 

Pont-a-Mousson,  pS 

Pontebba.  p8n-t?b'ba 

Ponte  di  Piave,  pon'U  d?  pya'vS 

Pontoy,  pon'toi 

Pont-Pierre,  pon'-pyar' 
Pont-Ste.-Maxence,    p  6  N  '  -  s  S  N  t '  • 

ma'za.Ns' 

Pont-sur-Sambre,  p6N'-sur'-sa'N/br' 
Poperinghe,  p<5'pe-r5Ng' 
Pordenone,  pCr'dS-no'na 
Portogruaro.  por't8-grd&-a'ro 
Portole,  por't8-la 
Portore,  por't8-ra 
Port  Said,  port  sa-€d' 
Potteauz,  pS'tS' 
Pozieres,  pfi'zyir' 
Predazzo,  pra-dat'so 
Pripet,  pre'pit 
Prisrend,  pre'zr?nt 
Profondeville,  prS'foNd'vel' 
Promontore  (cape),  pro'mon-to'ra 
Pronsfeld.  prfinz'felt 
Proskurof  (or  Proskurov),  pro'skd6-r6f 
Proven,  nro'vfn 
Provencbdres,  prS'va.s'shSr' 
Provin,  pr8'vS.N' 
Pram,  pr<5oni 
Pmth  (river),  prCot 
Przasnysz,  pshSs'nlsh 
PrzemySl  (or  Peremysl),  pshf'mlshl  y' 
Pulnoy,  piil'nwa' 
Pultusk,  pd61't<36sk 
Pussemange,  piis'mSNzh' 
Ptittlingen,  nut'llng-«n 
Puxieuz,  pu'zyQ' 

Quareux,  ka'rt' 
Quarnero,  kwar -na'ro 
Quartes.  kart 
Quatre-Bras,  ka'tr"  brS' 
Quesnoy,  Le,  le  kS'nwa' 
Quevaucamps.  ke-voOtaN' 
Quicvrain.  ke'e-vrSN 
Quievy,  ke'g-ve' 

Raddon,  ra'dox' 
Radmaunsdorl,  rad'mounz-d6rf 
Radom,  rii'dSm 
Radzivilov,  rad'rf'v«-lfif 
Raeren,  r5'r?n 

Rambervillers,  ras-'beVve'iar' 
Rambruch,  ram'brooic 
Ramecourt,  ramTcoor' 
Ramet.  ra'ma' 
Ramillies.  ra'me'ye' 
Ramonchamps,  ra' 
Ramont,  ra'mo:/ 
Ranee,  rass 


Ranconniere,  ra.s'kfi'nyaV 
Raon,  ra.s 

Raon-lEtape,  ras'-Ia'tip' 
Rappoltsweiler,  rap'^lts-vT'ler 
Rastenburg,  ras't?n-boarK' 
Raucourt,  ro'kSor' 
Rauleconrt,  rSl'ksar' 
Raulseur,  rol'sQr' 
Rava  (or  Rawa),  ra'va 
Raves,  rav 
Raville,  ra'vel' 
Ravnagora.  rav'na  go'ra 
Rawaruska,  ra'va-ro6s'ki 


'ya' 


Rechingen. 

Recogne.  rf'kfin'y' 

Redu,  re'du' 

Regnieville.  r?'n\f'vel' 

Rfthainvilier,  ra'ix've'y 

Rehan,  ra'Ss' 

Reichlange,  nxlang  2 

Reims  (or  Rheims),  remz;  Fr.  riNs 

Reisdort,  rTz'dSrf 

Releghem,  rel'e  g?m 

Remagne,  re-man'y' 

Remaucourt,  ri'mo'kdor' 

Remich,  ra'mlK 

Remiremont,  rg-mer'mflN' 

Remy,  ra'mf 

Renaix,  r?-n?' 

Renland,  rSn'la'nt 

Renlies,  ra'N'le' 

Renwez,  raN'va' 

Repaix.  re-p?' 

Resteigne,  res't?n'y' 

Rethel,  rg-teT 

Retiland.  roilant 

Revin,  re-vS.s-' 

Rezonville,  re-zoN'vel' 

Rheims  (or  Reims),  rfmz  ;  Fr.  riNs 

Ribecourt,  rgb'krer' 

Ribemont,  reb'm6N' 

Richterich,  rlK'te-rlx 

Riempst.  rempst 

Rienne.  re/in' 

Riga,  re'ga 

Rigny.  re'Dye7 

Rimbach,  rem'baK 

Rimogne.  re'mSn'y" 

Rinnthal,  rln'tal 
Riviere,  re'vyar' 
Robecq,  rSTselt' 
Robechies,  rSb'she' 
Robelmont,  rt'bcl'moN' 
Roche,  La,  la'  rftsh' 
Rochefort,  r6sh'f8r' 
Rochehaut,  r6sh'5' 
Rochesson.  r6sh'»6N' 
Roclincourt,  r5'kla.v'k6or/ 
Rocroi,  riVkrwa' 
Rodemachem,  ro'd?-ma'K'eni 
Roeux,  r8'C' 
Roisel,  rwa'zel' 
Roly.  rS'lf 
Rombas,  ron/bas 
Roncq,  r6\k 
Roobors,  rotors 
Rorbach,  rSr'baK 
Rosee.  rfi'za' 
Rosieres,  r^'zySr' 
Rosieres-en-Santerre, 

sa'N'tar' 

Rossart,  rS'sar' 
Rotgen,  rot'g?n 
Rothau.  ro'tou 
Roubaix.  rCo 
Rouen,  rwa'N 
Rouffach,  rdt 
Rougemont, 
Roulers,  r<55'la' 
Roupy.  roa'pe7 
Rousonigge,  rous'brd&g-2 
Rouves,  r675v 
Rouvres,  roo'vr' 
Rouvrois,  rfiBv'rwa' 
Rouvroy.  roov'rwa' 
Roux,  rt56 

Roverbella,  roVgr-bJlla 
Roveredo,  ro'vj-ra'do 

344 


Rovigno,  i 

Rovigo,  r6-ve'go 

Royaumeix,  rwa'yo'me* 

Roye,  rwa 

Rozoy-sur-Serre,  rd'zwi'-sfir'-slr' 

Rozzo,  r6d'z8 

Ruddervoorde,  rud'er-vor'de' 

Rudlin,  riid'laV 

Rulles,  nil 

Rumbeke,  rum'ba-k? 

Rumes,  rum 

Rumigny,  ril'me'nyZ' 

Rupt.  riip 

Russen,  n5s'?n 

Rzeszow,  zhg'shoof 

Saar  (river),  zar 
Saarbrucken,  zai  _, 
Saarburg,  zar'bo6rK 
Sablon,  sa'bloN' 
Sachsenburg.  sak's?n-bd6rK 
Sacile,  sa-che'la 
Saied,  sa'fW 
Safielaere,  saf?-la'rZ 
Saida,  sa'?-da 
Sains,  six 

Sains-Richmont, : .„ 

Saint-Amand,  sSN'ta'ma'N' 
Saint-Benoit,  s5s'-be-nwa' 
Saint-Blaize,  siN'-b'*'' 
Saint-Bresson,  S^N' 
Saint-Cyr,  six'-ser' 
Saint-Denis,  s5N'-d?-ne' 
Saint-Die,  sax'^lya' 

Saint-Etienne,  s5N'-t5'ty?n' 
Saintes.  saM 

Saint-Genest.  sSN'-zhe-n?' 
Saint-Georges,  ?5N'-zh8rzh' 
Saint-Gerard,  sa.v'-zhS'rar' 
Saint-Germain,  s5N'-zh?r/mlN/ 
Saint-Ghislain,  sJs'-ges'laN' 
Saint-Gilles,  sJN'-zhel' 
Saint-Hilaire,  sSN'-te'lSr' 
Saint-Hubert,  sSV-tu'bar' 
Saint-Jean,  s5N'-zha'N' 
Saint-Josse-ten-Noode,     sSN'-zhos' 

tls'-nod' 

Saint-Julien,  s2N'-zhii'lySN' 
Saint-Laurent,  s5s' -lo'rk'N-' 
Saint-Leger.  sSs'-la'zha' 
Saint-Leonard,  sas-'-la'o'nar' 
Saint-Marcel,  saV-mar'seV 
Sainte-Marguerite,  sJ.vt'  mar'ge-ret' 
Sainte-Mane,  saNt'-ma're7 
Saint-Martin,  s3N'-mar't5N' 
Saint-Maurice,  saN'-m6'res' 
Saint-Medard,  sSs'-me  dar* 
Saint-Michel,  si.N'-me'sheT 
Saint-Mihiel.  saV-m«'yf1' 
Saint-Nabord,  sis'  na^r7 
Saint-Nicholas,  &SN'  neTcMa' 
Saint-Omer,  s5N'-t8'mSr' 
Saint-Ouen,  sS.v'-twaN' 
Saint-Paul,  slV-p81' 
Saint-Pierre,  sis'  pySr' 
Saint-Pol,  mtf-ytf 
Saint-Privat,  s5N'-pre'va' 
Saint-Quentin.  sas'  kas'tix' 
Saint-Remy,  sis'-r?  me' 
Saint-Simon,  sas'  s?'moN' 
Saint-Sulpice,  saV-siil'pes' 
Saint-Trond,  siN'-trfiN' 
Saint-Venant,  sSs1 
Sainville.  sas'-vel' 
Saleux.  sa'lfl' 

Saloniki  (or  Salonica),  sa'16-nE'k? 
Salvore,  sal-vo'ra 
Sambre  (river),  sa'jj'br' 
Samree.  sa'N'ra' 
San  (river),  san 

Sanconrt.  siNlti 

San  Giorgio,  san  jdr'jS 
Santeuil,  six'td'y' 
San  Pietro.  san  pya'tro 
Sapogne,  sa'pfln'y"' 
Sappois-le-Bas.  sa'pwa'-l?-ba' 
Sappois-le-Haut, 
San  Vito,  san  ve* 


Pronunciation  of  War  Names 


Sarajevo  (or  Sarayevo),  sa'ra-yS-vS 

Sarifa,  sa-re'fa 

Sart,  sar 

Sarthe  (river),  sart 

Saulnes,  son 

Saulnot.  so'n8' 

Sauvigny,  so've'nye' 

Saulxures,  so'lur' 

Save  (river),  sav 

Saventhem,  sa'v&i-tem 

Schaerbeek,  sKar'bak 

Scheven,  sxa'v^n 

Scliifflingen,  shtt'llng-gn 

Schio,  ske'o 

Schirmeck,  sher'mSk 

Schleiden,  shli'd?n 

Schmidtheim,  shmtt'hlm 

Schoenecken,  sKoo'nfk-?n 

Schoneberg,  shfi'ne-berK 

Schooten,  sK5't?n 

Schopp,  sh8p 

Schrierlach,  shrer'laK 

Scutari  (or  Skutari),  skoo'ta-re 

Seclin,  se-klaN' 

Sedan,  se-daN' 

Segelsem,  sa'g?l-s?m 

Seicheprey,  sgsh'prg' 

Seine  (river),  san 

Selbach,  zal'ba'K 

Seloignes,  se-lwan'y* 

Seneffe,  s5-n?f 

Senlis,  sau'les' 

Senon.  sa'noN' 

Sentheim,  zant'hlm 

Seny,  se-n§' 

Seraing,  se"-ran' 

Seres,  ser'gs 

Sereth  (river),  sa-rgt' 

Serres,  sar 

Servance,  sgr'vaNs' 

Servigny,  ser've'nye' 

Seuil,  sQ'y' 

Sevran,  se-vraN' 

Sezanne,  sa'zan' 

Sibret,  se^ra' 

Sichen,  sTx'gn 

Siedlce  (or  Syedlets),  shgl'tsg 

Sierck,  zerk 

Signy-l'Abbaye,  s5'nye'-la'ba' 

Signy-le-PeUt,  se'nye'-lg-pe-te' 

Silenrieux.  se'lSN'ryfi' 

Sillegny,  se'lg'nye' 

Silly,  se'ye' 

Simmerath,  zTm'e-rat 

Sin,  saN 

Sinay,  s€'nS' 

Sinob  (or  Sinope),  sf-nSb' 

Sinope  (or  Sinob),  sl-nS'pe" 

Sinsta,  saN'san' 

Sinspelt,  zSnz'pelt 

Sirault,  se'ro' 

Sivas,  se'vas' 

Sivry,  se'vrE' 

Skoplje  (or  U'skiip),  skSplyg 

Skutari  (or  Scutari),  sk66'ta-re 

Sleydinge,  sll'dlrj-gS 

Slype,  slgp 

Snaeskerke,  snas'kgr-ke 

Sochaux,  s8'sho' 

Sofia  (or  Sophia),  s&'fe-a;  s6-fe'a 

Sohier,  sS'e'a' 

Soignies,  swa'nye' 

Soire,  swar 

Soissons,  swa's6N' 

Sokolof  (or  Sokolow),  so-Tcrj-lSf 

Solbach,  zol'bSK 

Solesmes,  s8'lam' 

Sologne,  s8'16n'y' 

Soniain,  s8'maN' 

Sombrin,  soN^raN' 

Somergem,  so'mer-g?m 

Somme  (river,  department),  s8m 

Sommerviller,  s8'mer've'ya' 

Somzee,  s6N'za' 

Soppe,  z8p'e 

Sorcy,  sSr'sE' 

Sotenich,  zo'te-ntK 

Sottegem,  s6t'e-ggra 


Souain,  soo'au' 
Souilly,  swe'ye' 
Soulosse,  soo'lfts' 
Soultzbach,  zoults'baK 
Soultzmatt,  zoults'mat 
Soumagne,  sSo'man'y" 
Soumay,  soo'mg' 
Soupir,  sflo'per' 
Sourbrodt.^our'brrJt 
Sourvoy,  soor'vwa' 
Spilimbergo,  spe'lSm-bgr'go 
Spincourt,  spSn'koor' 
Spittal,  shplt'al 
Spy,  spe 
Staple,  sta'pl' 
Staufen,  shtou'frn 
Steenbrugge,  stan'bro&g'e 
Steenvoorde,  stan'vor-de" 
Steige,  shtl'ge 
Sterrebeek,  ster'e-bak 
Stettin,  shtg-ten' 
Stosswihr,  shtSs'ver 
Stoumont,  stoo'moN' 
Straimont,  strg'moN' 
Stralsund,  shtriil'zdont 
Stree,  stra 
Strigno,  stre'nyo 
Strurna  (river),  stroo'ma 
Stryj,  strg'y' 
Sugny,  sii'nye' 
Suippes;  swep 
Suwalki,  so^-val'kS 
Sweveghem,  swa've-ggm 
Swevezeele,  swS'vg-za'le 
Swinemiinde,  sve'ne-miin'd? 
Syedlets  (or  Siedlce),  sygd'lygts 

Tabriz,  ta-brez' 
Tahure,  ta'Ur7 
Taintrux,  taN'trii' 
Tarcento,  tar-chgn't8 
Tarcicnne,  tar'svgn' 
Tarnopol,  tar-no'p81-y' 
Tarnow,  tar'n66f 
Tavaux,  ta'vS' 
Tavigny,  ta'vg'nye' 
Tchatalja  (or  Chatalja),  cha-tal'ja 
Tchernavoda  (or  Cernavoda),  chgr'na- 
v6'da 

Tellancourt,  te-laN'ko6r' 
Tellin,  te-laN' 
Templeuve,  taN'plQv' 
Tentre,  taN'tr' 
Termes,  t?rm 

Termonde  (or  Dendermonde) ,  tgr'moNd' 
Ternuay,  tgr'nii'g' 
Thann,  tan 
Thaon.  taN 
Thelus,  ta'lii' 
Therouanne.  tS'roo'an' 
Thezey,  ta'zg' 
Thiant,  te'aN" 
Thiaucourt, 
Thielosse,  tye-f8s 
Thielt,  t51t 
Thiene,  tyg'nS 
Thil,  tel 
Thillot,  te'yo' 

Thionville  (or  Diedenhofen),  tyoN'vel' 
Thirimont,  te're^noN' 
Thouront,  t^ ' 
Thuin,  tii'aN 
Tillet,  te'yar 
Tincourt,  tJ 
Tirlemont,  ter'l'moN' 
Tolmezzo,  t6i-m8t'so 
Tomasof  (or  Tomaszow),  t8-ma'so6f 
Tongres,  toN'gr' 
Tourcoing,  toor'kwaN' 
Tournay  (or  Tournai),  t66r'na' 
Traubach.  trou'bax 
Trenchiennes,  triiN'shyeV 
Trebizond,  tr5b'I-z8nd' 
Tregnano,  tra-nya'no 
Trelon,  tra'I8N' 
Triaucourt,  tr^'oTcoor' 
Treviso,  tra-ve'zo 
Trieste  (or  Triest),  trt-«»t' 
Trieux,  tre'tt' 

345 


Trouche,  La,  la' 
Turkheim,  tdork'him 

Uberstrasse,  u'ber-shtras'Z 

Udine,  6o'd6-n5 

Ugny,  ii'nye' 

Umago,  6o-ma'g5 

itnie  (or  tfnieh),  u-ne'« 

Urbach,  oor'baK 

Urbeis,  oor'bls 

Uria,  dor'fa' 

Urmatt,  Cor'mat 

Urmiah  (or  Urmia,  Urumiah),  Cor'me'a 

Urrel,  oor'gl 

Urufle,  u'ruf 

Uskiip  (or  tfskiib,  Skoplje),  us-kiip* 

Vacquerie,  va'ke-re' 
Vagney,  va'nyg' 
Valenciennes,  va'laN'sygn' 
Valhey,  val'g' 

Valjevo  (or  Valyevo),  val'yS-v5 
Valmerangen,  val'me-rang'^n 
Valmy,  val'me' 
Vance,  vaxs 
Vancouleurs,  va 
Vandieres,  vaN'dyir' 
Vannes,  van 
Vardar  (river),  var'dar' 
Varennes-en-Argonne,  va'ren'-ziiN'- 
ar'gSn' 

Vaucoort,  vSlcoor' 
Vaudemont,  v&d'm8n' 
Vaux,  v8 
Vecoux,  va'kso' 
Veglia,  va'lya 
Veiving,  fl'fTng 
Velaines,  ve-lan' 
Velasnes,  vf  -Ian' 
Vellerois,  vgl'rwa' 
Vellescot,  vgl'sk8' 
Vendee,  vaN'da' 
Vendegies,  vaNd'zhe' 
Vendin,  vaN'dSN' 
Venezia  (or  Venice),  v5-ngt'sya 
Venice  (or  Venezia),  vgnts 
Vennezey,  vgn'zg' 
Ventron,  vaN'trSN' 
Verdenal,  vgrd'nal' 
Verdun,  vgr'duN' 
Vermand,  vgr'man' 
Verneuil,  vgr'nQ'y' 
Verona,  vS-ro'nd ;  It.  va-ro'na 
Versailles,  vgr'sa'y* ;   Eng.  ver-silz* 
Verviers,  vgr'vySr* 
Vervins,  ver'vaN' 
Verzy,  vgr'z?' 
Viaden,  ve'a-d?n 
Vicenza,  v€-chgnt'sii 
Vigneulles,  ve'nyul' 
Villafranca.  vel'la-fran'ka 
Villemontoire,  vEl'mSN'twar' 
Villers-Bretonneux,  ve'lar'-bre'-td'nfl' 
Villers-Cotterets,  ve'lar/-k8't?-rg' 
Villers-la-ViUe,  ve'lar'-la'-vel' 
Villerupt,  vgl'riip' 
Villiers,  ve'ya' 
Vilvorde,  vel'v8rd' 
Vimy,  vg'me' 
Vincey,  vaN'sg' 
Vireux,  ve'ru' 

Vistula  (or  Weichsel),  vYs'tu-14 
Vitrimont,  ve'tre'mSN' 
Vitry-en-Artois,  ve'tre'-aN'  ar'twa' 
Vitry-le-Francois,  ve'tre'-le-fraN'swa' 
Vittorio,  vft-to'rS-o 
Voivre,  La,  la'  vwa'vr' 
Volga,  vSl'gd ;    Rusa.  vSl'ga 
Volhynia,  v81-In'I-a 
Volta,  vol'ta 
Voorde,  vor'd? 
Vosges,  vozh 
Vottem,  v8t'?m 
Vouziers,  vSo'zyftr' 
Vy-les-Lure,  ve'-la'-luH 

Wahlesscheid,  va'lgz-shlt' 
Walcourt,  val'kSor' 


Pronunciation  of  War  Names 


Walheim.  yalljTra 

Wallers.  vi'ISr' 

Wallendorl,  val'fci-dorf 

Wancennes,  vawVn' 

Waulin,  vaN'laN' 

Wardin,  var'di.s' 

Warta  (or  Warthe),  var't? 

Warzfee,  var'zi' 

Wasigny,  va'sc'nyS' 

Wasmes,  vam 

WasserbilllK,  vas'Zr-bll'TK 

Wassigny,  va'se'nve' 

Waterloo,  w8'ter-l<55'  ;  Du.  wa'tZr-lo' 

Watigny  va'te'nyf' 

Watwellflr,  vat'vl-l?r 

Wavre,  vav'r" 

Wavrin.  va'vrSN' 

Waxweiler,  vaks'vT-l?r 

Weenie,  war'de 

Weerl.  warf 

Wehingen,  vi'hlng-Ai 


Weichsel  (or  Vistula),  »Ik'»?l 
Weismes,  vTz'mcz 
Weitcn.  vl'tSn 
Weitersweiler,  vl'ten-vl'lcr 
Wembach,  vam'baK 
Werlalng,  vJr'llN' 
Wervlcq,  vfr'vft' 
Weselbcrg.  va'zJH-MrK 
Wetteren,  wJt'Sr-^n 
Wibrin,  ve'braN' 
Wignehies,  ven'y?-*' 
Wiltz.  vflts 

Wintzenheim,  vTnt's?n-h!m 
Wizernes.  vc'zarn' 
Woel,  w66l 
Wo8vre,  v37v'r' 
Woippy,  voi'pe 
Wolmeringen.  v5I'mer-Ing'en 
Woluwe-Saint-Lambert,  wol'u-we- 
s?nt-lam'b«rt 
Worth,  vdrt 


Wttrselen.  viir'xMin 


Xammes,  ram 
Xaronval,  za'rfl 
Xertigny.  rfr'te' 
Xironcourt,  ze'r 
Xlvry,  ze'vre' 
Xures,  ziir 


Yassy  (or  Jassy),  yaVJ 

Ypres,  e'pr" 

Yser  (river),  e'sa' 

Yvoir,  e'vwar' 

Zabern.  Ua'bern 

Zamosk  (or  Zamoif),  za'm8«bch 

Zeebrugge,  tsa^rftg'? 

Zellenburg,  ts?l'?n-bdorK 

Zirknitz.  tsfrk'nTts 

Zittau.  tsTt'ou 

Zloczbw,  z!8'ch(?6f 

ZweibrUcken,  tsvT'briik'?n 


346 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Abatis     100    Balkans 10,    12,    170,  171  Cantonments     .                         .  232 

Abbreviations  of  honors  and               Map   Plate  IX  Plate  XVII 

orders     152  Baltic  Sea  territory.  142,  159,  164    Cartridges     108 

Ace    67  Bank  Laws                                            Casualties   of   War 121,  125 

Adjutant-General    104        German     202,203    Catapult    88 

Admiral 107    Barrage    46    Cattle  230    274,281 

Aero    campaign 51    Batoum  176-212    Caucasus 176 

Africa  Battalion     104    Causes  1    5,17,     33 

possessions  in 26,   28,     30    Battalion   of   Death 150    Cavell,    Edith 156,  157 

taxation     29    Battery    105    Censorship    224,  294 

war 30,     171  Battlefields  Central  Powers 

Agriculture 228,  229,  274,  280        cultivation     102  (see  Germany  and  Austria- 
Aircraft    bombing 48,     68    Battles     128-130,  296  Hungary) 

Airplanes    67    to     77        naval    131-135    Chalons    296 

Air    raids 70,     75  Battleships    (see    Warships)            Charles   Francis  Joseph 301 

Albania    4    Beatty,    Sir   David 305    Chauvinism     7 

Alcohol     278    Beer    278    Chelmsford,    Lord 317 

Alexandra,    Queen 302    Belgium    153,    158,  304  Chemin   des  Dames...           .   128 

Alien    Draft    Bill 238        king    300,304    Chief  of  Staff 103 

Alien   Enemies 293,    322,  323  Map    showing    Franco-Ger-            Chile 276,  283,   145,  285 

Allies    139  man  frontier.  ...Plate  IV            China 26,  31,  115,   187,  321 

armies    147    Berlin     212,  223    Chronology   327  to  336 

cost   of   war 197  Berlin-Bagdad    Railroad. .  .6,  192    Civilians    151 

Alsace-Lorraine     21-25,213    Bernhardi,  General 309    Clemenceau,   Georges 312 

Map    Plate  VII  Bessarabia    .167    Olive,   Lord 173 

Ambassadors    and    Ministers  Bethmann-Hollweg,   Dr.   T...   310    Coal 26,   176,  209,  210,  284 

37,317    Big  Bertha 88    Coast    defense 85 

Ambulance   Service    299    Birth   rate 247  JCoff ee     229 

America  (see   United  States)  Black   Sea 11    Colliers    82 

American       Federation       of           Blockade    33,    38  Colonies 

Labor    319    Boche    224       England's    26 

American    inventions 87  Boer  War                                                   Germany's     27 

Ancona     63  (see  Africa)  Commerce 

Anglo-German    Hague     Con-           Bohemians 19  (see  trade) 

f erence     119    Bolo  Pasha  317  Commercial    development  ...       8 

Anglo-German    relations 8    Bolshevik!    163,  177  Commissioned    officers. .  .105,  106 

Anti-aircraft   guns 73  Bombs                                                  Communication   line 53 

Antwerp    156       airplane    70,     74    Communication    trench 102 

Anzac    151    Bosnia    17    Congress  of  Berlin 17 

Appam   case 259    Bounties    131,276    Congress  of  Vienna 5 

Arabic    62    Bourassa,    Henri 318    Company    103 

"Armed  ship"   controversy..     39    Bourgeois    178    Company  clerk 51 

Armenians    168,  169    Boycott    319    Conscientious    objectors 244 

Armies   50,  103,  104    Boy-Ed,    Capt 307    Conscription   231  to  241 

Ancient    296    Brazil    246    Constantino    301 

Australian   242,  243    Bread    227,  272    Constantinople     11 

Austria-Hungary     150    Breech-loading     88    Constanza 165 

Canadian    147    Breslau    133    Continuous    voyage 41 

French    147,241    Breat-Litovsk    167,183    Contraband   33 

German     149,  241    Briand,    Aristide 311    Copper  96,  101,  285 

Great    Britain 147,  243,  245    Bridgehead    101    Corn... 227,   275,  281 

Russian 128,    224,    242,  245    "Brig" 86    Corps   53,   106 

United   States 103,    108,231    Brigade    105    Cossacks    160 

Map    Plate   XVII  British   East   India    Co 174    Cost 1,  125,  190  to  205 

Armor  on  ships 85  British  Empire                                     Cotton 90,  91,  210,  287 

Artillery                                                   (see   Great   Britain) 5  Council  of  National  Defense  292 

American  53    Browning    gun 94    Courland    159,  165 

weapons    101,  102    Brussels     153    Court  Martial 322,  323 

Asia  Minor  Bulgaria    14,302    Crops 228,   229,    274.280 

Map    Plate   X  Bullets  Crown  Prince  of  Germany..  225 

railroads    6       dum-dum 101    Cruisers 79,     84 

territory    192    Bulow,    Prince 311    Currency    203 

Asquith     '. 310,317    Bundesrath    216,217    Cyprus    27 

Atrocities    225    By-products     207    Czar  of  Russia 183,  301,  302 

Australia  26,  27,  145,  148,  248,  287    Cabinet,  U.  8 290    Czech 19 

armies    124,   242,243    Cadorna,   General    307    Czernin,   Count 3 

Austria-Hungary    ....16,    37,170  Cameras                                               Dacia 259 

army     150        aircraft    72  Dalmatia 

Emperor     301    Camouflage    89        Map,  plate  VIII 

nationalities     19  Camps                                                     Danish    West   Indies 27 

prisoners    119        cantonments     . .» 232    Danube    165,    166,266 

war    loan 205        prison   116    Dardanelles    11,    134,  136 

Austro-Italian   frontier Canada    26,277    Daylight    Saving 320 

Map    Plate   VIII  army     147    Death   penalties 104,    322,  323 

Baden-Powell,    General 308        casualties    124    Death  rate 232,246 

Baker.    Secretary 291        French    population 31    de  Bloch,  Jean 317 

Balance   of   Power 5    Cannon   88,91,     95    Debts 181,    193,    194,   197 

349 


Index 


Declaration  of  London.. 33 

Declaration   of   War 214 

Defensive    army 50 

Demobilization     235 

Denmark 28,   158 

Depth-bomb     56 

Deserters     236 

Destroyers 81 

Destruction 

of   ships 252 

of    villages 139 

Deutschland    .61,208 

Dictionary  of  War  names 

338  to  346 

Dirigibles    71 

Disabled    soldiers 126 

Division-army    103,   104 

Dobrudja     165,   166 

Dora    152 

Draft    231    to  240 

"Drang;  nach  Osten" 3 

Dreadnoughts    79,    80 

Dresden    132 

Drunkenness 278 

"Dud"     49 

Dug-out*    102 

Duma 179,180 

Dumba,   Dr 37 

Dum-dum   bullets    101 

Duty   50,   199,  269 

Dyes    207 

Education    220 

Egypt   26,  29,  287 

Elections    215 

Emden 132 

Emigration    249 

Emperor  William  II 

(see  Kaiser) 

Enemy    289 

Enemy   Alien 290,  294 

Enfleld    rifle 87 

Enfilade 96 

England 

(see  Great  Britain) 

Entrenching    outfit 108 

Enver  Pasha 318 

Equipment  (see  outfit) 

Espionage     322,  323 

Esthonia     159,165 

Euphrates    268 

Europe,   Map  of 

Plate  II 

Plato  XIV 

Exchange    of    Prisoners 116 

Exemptions     234 

Expansion,    foreign 2 

Explosives    88,    90,     96 

Exports 

of    Germany 206 

of  Japan 186 

of  United  States 279 

Eyeglasses     52 

Factories    321 

Falklanda    131 

Farm    Loans.. 280 

Farmers   238 

Ferdinand    1 301 

Finger-prints 114 

Finland    161,    166,   167 

Fire-trench 49 

Fiume     5 

Flags  of  Allies 

Plate  XVIII 

Flemish   Belgium    154 

Foch,     General 310 

Food   Administration 281 

Food  blockade 

(see  blockade) 
Food  conditions 

226  to  229,  272  to  282 
Food    requirements    of    army 

51;,  52 

Foreign  Legion    149 

Forests     287 

"Forlorn  hope"  service   ....     45 


Fortress  confinement   222 

France 30 

army     ..101,   121.   147,  241,  285 

conscription    241 

debt 197 

food     276 

Foreign  Legion    149 

loans    200 

Map    showing   lowlands    of 

No.   France,  Plate  V 
Map  showing  highlands  of 
No.   France,   Plate  VI. 

president    312 

prisoners    116 

ships 263 

Franco-Prussian   war 25,  204 

Franco-Russian     Alliance....  9 

Franc-Tireurs     152 

Free    Coinage    197 

French   75s    101 

French,   General    306 

Frontiers     < 223 

"Frye"     258 

Fuel  ships 82 

Galicians    162 

Galllpoli 14,  125,  129,  148,  242 

Gas  masks 98 

Gas,  poisonous  96  to  99 

Gasoline    100,  286 

General    107 

George  V    300.  302 

Germany  26,  30,  31,  206,  218,  249 

airplanes    67 

army  95.  96,  97.    101,    115, 

121,   125.   127,  149,  240 

conquered   land    139 

conscription    241 

costs  of  war   202,  205 

cotton  needs   91 

emigration    213 

exports     206 

food     227 

frontier    223 

imports     206 

industrial  conditions  206  to  213 

iron    96 

loans    202,  213 

nationalities,     map     show- 
ing, plate  II. 

navy    8,  78,  141 

political    structure.. 214  to  223 

population     206,  220,  228 

prisoners    116  to  120 

Prussia 6,  212,  214,  218,  228 

seaports     211 

Gifts   to   soldiers 50,  52,  239 

Glacis 99 

Goeben    133 

Gold    coin    193 

Grain     139 

Great   Britain    5,  26,  171 

airplanes   68 

army 114,  121,  124.  147, 

243,  245 

debt     ...  197 

food     272  to  278 

king     300 

munitions     100  to  320 

navy    26,  ; 

prisoners    116 

Greece    13,   143,   150,  170,  301 

Greek  Catholic  Church 178 

Grenades    49 

Grey,   Viscount    313 

Gun-cotton     90 

Gun-layer     146 

Gunners 

American   naval    • 

Gunpowder    297 

Guns   44,    73,    75,    85,    92,   94, 

95,  96,  101,  143 

Hague    Conventions    1 

Haig,   Sir  Douglas 306 

Hanover     31 

Hapsburg     301 

350 


Harden.   Maximilian    318 

Hegemony  3 

Heligoland    137 

Helsingfors     166 

Herrenhaus 219 

Hertling,    Count    311 

Herzegovina    17 

Hindenburg,   General    ...225,  306 

"Hindenburg  Line"    51 

Hohenzollerns    215,  300 

Holland 

Belgium  refugees  in......   154 

claim    for    damages 225 

trade    269,  284 

Holy    Synod    1 78 

Home    Rule    169 

Honors  conferred. frontispiece  152 

Hoover,  Herbert   278 

Horses    152 

House    of   Lords 216,  217,  219 

Howitzers    92 

Huns     295 

"Hush-Hush"  ships   Ml 

Hymn   of   Hate    224 

Identification  of  fighting  men 

114,  115 

Imperialism    7 

Imports 

of   Germany    206 

of  Japan    186 

of   Russia    175 

Income   tax 

Great   Britain    198 

United   States    289 

Income,  V.  8 195 

European  Rulers  304 

Indemnity     36,   127,  222 

India 147   to   149,    171   to   174 

Industrial   conditions 

Germany     206-213 

Infantryman     108 

Inoculation    125 

Insignia    109-113 

Insurance     239 

Interned  German  ships 257 

Inventions 

American     87 

Irish     148,  169 

Iron     23,  96,  216 

Iron  ration   227 

Istria    5 

Italia   Irredenta    3 

Italy    ...5,  136 

identification    of   men 115 

possessions    31 

war   costs    201 

"Jam    Pot"     49 

Jameson  Raid    30 

Japan    184  to  189 

navy     79,  188 

population     248 

Jellicoe,   Sir  John  R 305 

Jerusalem    130 

Jews    168 

Jingoism 

Joffre,   General  Joseph 305 

Junker     218.  308 

Jutland     131 

Kaiser    ...214,  226,  300,  302,  303 

Kamerun 32 

Kerensky,  Alexander  313 

Kiau-Chau     187 

Kiel  Canal  137.  267 

Killed 121,   122,  125 

King  of  England 216,  300 

Kings     300,  304 

Kipling     152 

Kitchener,    Lord    305 

Kite    balloon    75 

Knitted   articles    52 

Knot    83 

Korea    185 

Kornilov,  General   307 

Krupp  works 210,  307 

Labor  laws   319 


Index 


Labor  Unions   319 

Lachrymal    skill    97 

Landsturm     241 

Language     20,  23,  294 

Lenine,   Nikolai    177,  315 

Liberty  Loans    195 

Liberty  motor 72 

Liebknccht,    Karl    314 

Liege     125,  157 

Liquid   fire    97 

Listening    posts     49 

Lithuania    159.  164 

Livonia     159 

Lloyd  George,   David 310,  317 

Loans    186,   191,   194,   198-201, 

202,  205 
Lorraine   (see  Alsace) 

Lusitania    36,  264 

Luxembourg    153,  158 

Macedonia     12,   13,   171 

Machine-gun    ...44,     94 

Mackensen,    Gen 49 

"Made  in  Germany" 269 

Magnitude     1 

Hail  matter  to  soldiers 

50,  52,  239 

Maltese    29 

Manchuria     184 

Manila 186 

Maps 

World    at   War Plate   I 

Europe    Plate  II 

Subject     Nationalities     of 
German  Alliance 

Plate  III 

Belgium    and    Franco-Ger- 
man  frontier 

Plate  IV. 

Lowlands       of       Northern 
France  and  Belgium 

Plate  V 
Highlands       of       Northern 

France   plate  VI 

Alsace  &  Lorraine 

Plate  VII 

Dalmatia       and        Auslro- 
Italian  Frontier 

Plate  VIII 

Balkan  States Plate  IX 

Asia  Minor    Plate  X 

Western    Russia    and    Po- 
land     Plate  XI 

Russia-European  Plate  XII 
Pan-German   Plan 

Plate  XIII 
Physical   Map    of    Europe 

Plate  XIV 
Racial   Map    of   Europe 

Plate  XV 

Distribution      of      Nation- 
alities     Plate   XVI 

U.   S.   Army... Plate  XVII 
Flags  of  Allies 

Plate   XVIII 

Marine    Zones    85 

Master  list   231 

Maubeuge    308 

Meat      272,  277,  280 

Medals  of  Honor 

frontispiece 

Medical    Service    126 

Merchant  Ships 

American     261 

arming    39 

Japan's     186 

rights  of   40 

sinking    40,  252 

Mercier,    Cardinal    315 

Military    aims    136  to  140 

Military  honors   152 

Milner,  Lord  318 

Mine   fields    39 

Minerals     283 

Mines     63,  284 

Ministers   and    Ambassadors.   317 


Moltke,    G«n 131,  308 

Monel  Metal 114 

Mons     149 

Montenegro     170 

Morocco     3-4 

Moss 
use  for  dressing  wounds..    125 

Motor  cars    319 

Muller 132,   133,  225 

Munitions     100,  210 

Mutiny     222 

Namur 128 

Napoleon    295 

National   Army    231 

National    Guard     103 

National    power,    comparison 

of     1 

Nationalities,  distribution  of 

Map    Plate   XVI 

Nationalities  of   German  Al- 
liance, Map  of P.ate  II 

Nations  at  war 1 

Naturalization      249 

Naval  battles   131  to  135 

Naval   screen    84 

Navy 

camouflage    89 

Chile      145 

Germany     78,   141 

Great  Britain,  78,  141,  145,  305 

Japan     79,   142   188 

neutral     141 

slang     86 

United  States   78,  293 

Negroes    224 

Neutrality   rights    ...33,    39.  294 

New  Guinea    26 

Newspaper    correspondents..    151 

New  Zealand    26 

Nicholas   II   183,  301 

Nickel     284 

Nietzsche,    Frederick    W 316 

Nile,     French     and     English 

clash     9 

Nitrogen    283 

Nivelle,    General    Robt 307 

No  Man's  Land 49 

Non-combatants     151 

Non-commissioned  officers    . .    105 

Northcliffe,    Lord    316 

Norway    254 

Nurses    299 

Offensive  army    50 

Officer!    105,    106,   107 

Oil    83,    176,    212,  286 

Okuma,    Count    312 

Orders     152 

Orlando,    Vittorio    312 

Outfit 

cost  of   51 

soldiers     107 

weight    of    52 

Pacific    Ocean 

possessions    in     31 

Palestine    130,  168 

Pan- Americanism    294 

Pan-Germanism     . ., 6 

Map    of    Plate    XIII 

Pan-Slavism    3,    12,   161 

Paper      287 

Parcel  Post  packages  to  sol- 
diers      50,  239 

Paris    conference    270 

Parliament 

English     .,216 

German    216 

Parseval     70 

Pay,  army. 52,   106,   148,   239,  245 
Peace    terms 

suggested  by  Pros.  Wilson 

37,   163 
Peace    treaty 

Russo-German    175 

Peers     217 

Pension    245 

351 


Periscope    54,   65,  102 

Pershing,    General    310 

Persia      28,     29 

Petain,    General    305 

Peter   I    301 

Petrograd     163,182 

Petroleum     286 

Phalanx 88 

Philippines    186 

Phosgene    gas    98 

Photography 

aircraft    72 

Picardy   Battle    296 

Place    in    the    Sun 2,     26 

Platinum     ,. . .  284 

Platoon     103 

Plimsoll  mark   263 

Poland 159,   167 

Map   Plate  XI 

Poles     21 

Polish    Legion     149 

Political    aims    136    to  140 

Political    structure 

German    214   to  223 

Russia     176 

Polygamy    226 

Pope     151,  316 

Population     246 

Germany    206,   220,  228 

Japan    185 

Russia    247 

United    States    206,  246 

Pork     275 

Port    Arthur    185 

Portugal     150 

Postage    50,   52,  239 

Potash    283 

Potatoes     212 

Powder     90 

Premier   of   France    311 

Presents   to    soldiers   50,    52,  239 

President    of    France    312 

President    of    United    States 

37,    163,   214,  292 

Prices,    food    272,  281 

Prisoners    of    War 

43,   116  to   120,  201 
Privates 

equipment     107 

pay    106 

promotion    106 

Prize    court    40 

Pronunciation  of  War  names 

335-346 

Protagonists     7 

Provisional    Government    ...   177 

Prussia    212,    214,    218,  228 

Prussians     , 6,  218 

Punishments    104,    105,  118 

Racial   Map   of   Europe 

Plate  XV 

Raids   43,   70,     75 

Railroads   25,    175.    192,    209, 

267,   268,   292,  321 

Rajah    of    Sarawak 30 

Rapid-fire   gun    44,     95 

Rasputin     181 

Rations   (see  food) 

Reconstruction    work    293 

Record   of   Events  in   War.. 

327   to  336 

Red    army    182 

Red   Cross    298,  299 

Regiment     105 

Reichstag    216.    221,  313 

Religions   15,   178,  246,  250 

Reparation    127 

Reprisals     151 

Repudiation   of   debts 193 

Reserve   troops    46 

Reservists     .' 246 

Retaliation    41 

Reventlow,    Count    316 

Revenue  measures 

195,    197,    198,   289 


Inde 


Eevolutioniiti    .............   177 

Rhine    ............  210,    211,266 

Ribot,  Alexandre    ..........  311 

Rifle    ............  44,   87,   96.   102 

Rivalries,    pre-war    .........  2-12 

Rivalry,    military     .........       8 

Rivers,  9,   165,   166.  210,  211, 

266,    268 
Robertson,    General    ........   307 

Roman    Catholics    ..........   250 

Ross    rifle    .................    102 

Roumania    13,    138,    165,    166, 

201,212,301 
Royalty    ...................   300 

Rubber      ...................    211 

Ruler.    ..............  300   to  304 

Russia    .........  163.    175    to  183 

army    115.    122,    128,    224 

242,  245 
Czar    ....................   301 

debts     ...................    181 

food     ....................   229 

map    ...........  Plate    XI 

peace   treaty    ............    175 

premier    .................   313 

prisoners     ............  1  16,   182 

population     ..............   247 

™    C08ts    ...........  20°-  20  1 

228 

319 


Socialists    ----  221,    222,    315,316 

Soldiers 
allies    ...................   147 

duties     ..................    108 

equipment     ...............    107 

identification    ............    114 

pay   .....  52,   106,   148,  239,  245 

rank    ....................    106 

8.    0.    8.    signal  .............      56 

South   African   War 

(see    Africa) 

South   American   Republics..   250 
Sovereign     .................    197 

Soviets    ................  177,181 

Spain      .................  247,285 

Sprinyfleld    rifle    ..........  .87 

Spruce    lumber    ............     76 

Spur,    ...........  107 

Spy     ...................  322,  323 

Squad     ....................    103 

Staff    officer    ...............    107 

Steel      .....................   209 

Strategy    of    the    War  ......    136 

Strikes     ...................  222 

Submarine    war-zoue    decree. 

35.    38,  40 
Submarines  35  to  40,    54.   55, 

57    to   66.      9.  252 

Sudan      ..................  26,       30 


prisoners    ....  . 

Turpinite     ................. 

Typhoid 

vaccination     ............ 

Ukraine    .        ..160.   163,    164 

Uncle    Sam 

Uniforms 

United   State's" 

armv   4       53     54     101     108 
M™  Plate    XVII 

citizen,  "in  "oermVnv 
cost   of   war  igii'ti 

Danish    West"  Indies    nur 

chase 

entrv    lnt'o"wk'r  .....  Yl' 
'    W""V79   i 
' 


119 
96 

125 
167 


,apajlie   agreement 

munitions 

navy  "  V'g 

mtraHtv"  " 
v"6,  ............  33> 

vatfc?n  ...... 

v«ni™       ................... 

v»ni,«in'.  ........ 

vf,  jfn  ''  ............. 


Work 


} 

100 

293 

.2 

ll\ 


gunner. 
identification 


trousers    ................. 

St.    Petersburg    ............ 

Salandra,    Antonio    ......... 

Saltpeter     ................. 

Samoa     .................... 

"Sapper"     ................. 

Sarrail,    General    ........... 

Scheldt   River    ............. 

Scientific  development 

8,206, 
Scotland     .................. 

"Scrap   of   paper"    ......... 

Sea  fights    ................. 

Seaplane    .................. 

Seaports 

German    ................. 

Sea-power,    Germany's    ..... 

Seas 

control    of    .............. 

freedom    of    the     ........ 

Secret   diplomacy    .......... 

Sector     ................ 

Selective    Draft    ........... 

Serbia    .........  13,    16,    149, 

casualties    ............... 

king     .................... 

prisoneus     ............... 

war   costs    ............... 

"Shell    shock"    ............. 

Shells    ..............  96,    97, 

Ships 

construction    ............. 

destruction      ............. 

fuel     .................... 

Interned   ................. 

merchant    ........  39,    186, 

seizures    ................. 

£*°"     :  .................  S2- 

Shrapnel    .................. 

Shrapnel-shells    ............ 

Siberia    ...........  182,    185, 

Sickness     .................. 

Sieges     .................... 

Signals     ................... 

Silent  Susie    ............... 

Sinn   Fein    ................. 

Slackers     .................. 

Slang     ..................... 

Slavs    ................  3,    19. 

Smoke-box     ................ 

Smuts,    General    ........  149, 


82  .  -          .        .  272.    273.  281 

114  Surveyor-General     of     Army 

85  Purchases    ...............  292 

85  Sussex,    sinking   of    ........  36 

182  Sweden     ...................  166 

312  Switzerland     ...............  50 

283  Sword     ....................  107 

31  Tag    identification    .....  114,  115 

49  "Tagging"     ...............  .  51 

308  Tanks     ..................    ,  99 

266  Tannenberg     ...............  129 

Taxation    29,    198,    204,    213,289 

209  Teeth    ..........  .  ..........  237 

248  Telegraph    .................  267 

158  Telephone   operators    .......  51 

131  Territorials     ..............  147 

69  Tetanus      ..................  126 

Thomas    ...................  316 

211  Three-Emperor    Year    ......  304 

8  Thrift   stamps    .............  195 

Time    fuses  92 

5  Tirpitz,    Admiral    .....  .....  308 

38  Tisza,   Count   Stephen  .......  313 

2  Tolite     .....................  90 

48  Tolstoy 

231  prophecies    of    ...........  182 

312  Tonnage     ..................  81 

122  Torpedo   mine    .............  64 

301  Torpedoes     ..............  55,..  60 

119  Trade    arteries    ............  266 

201  Trade,    world    ____  8-26.    9   to  271 

47  Trading  with  the  Enemy  Act  289 

101  Traitor    ................  322.323 

Transports 

253  capacity    of    .............  52 

252  defense   of    ..............  54 

82  Treaties 

257  Russian  peace    ...........  175 

261  Treaties,    secret    ...........  2 

255  Japan    and   Russia  ........  188 

?|  $  Treaty   of   Paris  ...  11 

102  Treltschke     ................  316 

73  Trenches    ..................  42 

192  communication     ..........  102 

231  mortar     ...............  48 

130  outfit     ...................  108 

56  periscope     ...............  102 

102  Triple  Alliance    ............  16 

169  Tripoli     ...................  9 

238  Trotzky    ...........  ........  314 

86  Turkey    ................  134,  136 

178  army    ................  307.  308 

56  Islands     .................  31 

308  navy    ....................  144 

352 


V°Tn    Bethmann-Hollweg,    Dr. 
_    '  _'  ',  .....  J,'; 

^on   ""I??'   *ft"L  ........   I 

^on  Herthng,  Count   .......   311 

Jon    Mackensen    .......  ....    1 

Jon    JJ°!J        .......  .Vv!U'  I 

Jon   Huller  132,133.225 

Jon  Tirpitz,  Admiral    ......   3i 

Von    Zevehl,    General    ...... 

I?*™*    to-.*?2*  ............    . 

Walloon     Belgium    .........    154 

War  l>»-J>i"    ...........  ••••   f 

War  debts        ..........  !93>J?f 

War  certificates    ........... 

War  Chancellor      ..........   310 

War  factor,   single                        2 

War     loana     186-     "I.     >*«•  „„ 
198,200,205 

War  lord    .................   214 

War  Savings   Stamps    ......    1' 

Warships   ..78  to  86,    141   to  146 
Wars,    since   Franco-Prussian       9 
War-zone   decree    .....  35,   38,  40 

Water 

'0*    armies    in    France  ----     48 

Waterloo      .................  295 

Weapons   of   War  .........  87-101 

Weather    ..................   2' 

West    Point    ...............    107 

Wheat    273,    276,    279,    281.282 
Whiskey    ..................   2 

Whiz-Bang      ...............    H 

William    II    ..214.    226,    300.302 
Wilson,   President    ..37,   214,  292 

peace  principles    .........    163 

Wire 

barbed    ..................   100 

Wireless     ...............  64,     86 

Women's    work    ...290,    319,  320 
Wood   pulp  287 

Wood      Major'-  General'  '  Leon- 

-_j  i/>c 

"{  '"-MO"  -MI'   : 

jjl001     ............  210'     ' 

Workers    ............  319    to  321 

World  Map   .........  Plate  I 

Wounded     ..............  122,   126 

Yokohama     ....  .  186 

Zabern    affair    .............     23 

Zem8tvo,  170 

t*°'*7"     ..............  'V    '2 

Zeppelin     ...............  69,     , 

Zouaves      ..................    148 

Zwehl,    General    ...........   308 


UC  SOUTHERN  HEGIONAL  L'BRARY  FACIU 


A    000068122     1 


